The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-23
COURT OF APPEALS.

ALBANY, June %, 1875.
The following decisions were handed down to-
day.
order affirmed. with costs.-Cnase vs. Wander
5Ilt In the matter OF the petition oil lngraham.
ordered that appellants have leave TO take
dismissal OF appeal and 70 have new trial under
the order OF the General Term upon paying costs
In this Court.-Bensel VS.. Gray.
Ordered that appellants have leave TO take a
dismissal OF appeal and 10 have new trial under
order of General Term but without costs TO either
party ia this Court as against the otner.-Gray vs..
Bensel.
judgment affirmed with costs as to Travers
Jerome and Skiddy, and as TO McV1ckar, Gaylord
and Askmore Judgment reversed and new trial
granted. costs to abide eyent-Mor9an vs. S9iduy.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.-Enl vs.. The Trus-
tees ui Canajnhare.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.-McCollom vs..
Seward; McGrlffn Baird; Thompson VS.. Ste
yeas; Halsey vs.. stevens; Torchan vs. The City or
Judgment modified by deductlng one-half OF the
exit allowance, and as modified affirmed, with
out costs TO either party in this Court.-Hunt vs..
Order granting new trial affirmed and Judgment
absolute for defendants on STIPULATION, with
costs.-Quackenbos VS.. Sayre.
THE GARDNER-CHARLICK CASE.
The Court OF Appeals mas affirmed the judgment
or the lower court in the case OF Hugh Gardner
ana over Cnarlick plaintiffs in error. against the
People OF the State OF New YORK, defendants in
error Judge Church delivered tue opinion, OF
which the following is an aDstract:-
The question naturally arising ID whether the
statute was violated in not giving notice TO In
spector sheridan before removing him. The
statute laws OF 1872, CHAP 675, sec. l3, provides
that an election inspector shall hold office Tor one
year unless sooner removed Tor want oil the requi-
site qualifications or for cause, either OF which
cases such removal, unless made while the lnSpec-
tor Is actually on duty on a DAY or registration.
revision OF registration, or election and Tor i'm
proper conduct as an election onicer shall only
be made after notice Ia writing to the ofhcer
sought 10 be removed, which notice shall set
lortu clearly and distinctly the reason Tor his re-
moval.
on day OF registration. revision OF registration
or election, but IL Is claimed that he was removed
Tor improper conduct as an election oliicer. and
that no notice was necessary the statute re-
Quired notice TO be given as rule the exception
relates 20 nartIcnar time ~. ana parhsdiar
out notice. The time must be on day OF regis
traiion, revision OF registration or election. and
the cause must BE- improper conduct as an cleo
ton oIicer, and, III adul.lon, the incumbent must
be on duty. Unless all OF these acts exist notice
IL indispensable 10 q removal.
The construction con tended for would authorize
a removal on the speclfed day for any cause, aud
on any other day for improper conduct as an cleo
exception broader than the rule. The Chief
Judge argues tnis and others points raised at much
he also holds that the Court OF oyer and TER
miner and or General Sessions have jurisdiction
IN the case according TO section ;, chapter ss7.
Judgment is therefore affirmed. All the judges
concur, except Judge Grover, WHO was absent al
decision, aud Judges folger and Rapallo, VINO
were absent al the argument.
MISUNDERSTANDING w. Aldrcn..-Motion 70 dis
miss appeal y. Z. Monk for the motion. The
Court TOOK the papers.
Appeals from Orders.-No. 2sl. In the matter or
the petition OF Jonn ID. WORMS TO vacate an as
sessment &c.-Arsued BY j. ). Lawrence for APP
pellant. ana by William Barnes Tor respondent.
No. $50. In the matter oil the application OF the
Department OF Public ParEs.-Araued by James L.
carter, OF counsel Tor appellant. and by James A.
Deering Tor respondent
No. 200. In the matter Of the petition Of Patrick
r. Conway 10 vacate an assessment.-Argued by
James A. Deerng, OF counsel Tor appellant, and BY
William Barnes for respondent.
GENERAL CALENDAR.
Nos. rs and 10. Excelsior savings Bank vs.
Campnen.-Argu nent resumed anu concluded.
NO. SO. Elanor j. Westervelt appellant, VS.. John
T. Ackley respOndent.-Suomitted
No. 50. William ). ARNOLD ct al. respondents,
VS.. merson q. Angel, appelant.-Argucu DY ;.
Hand, OF counsel for appellant ana Osborn Z.
Bright for respondent.
No. 81. EDWARD II. Van Ingou, respondent. vs..
Nathaniel whitman, implicated, &c. appellant
Argued by samuel uand. OF counsel Tor appellant,
AM bY RUFUS h, Corning or respondent.
No. Oh. Henry q. Odell, resp sLdent VS.. Charles
w. Durant, appellant--Su0mitted.
Court adjourned.
DAY CALENDAR
The following IS the day calendar for wednes.
day, June 23:-Nos. 81, IS, 50, IS, 81 50, o. 90.