The New York herald., 1876-10-31
order affirmed, with $40 costs and disbursements.

Hacnfeld ct aL--Judgment anfrmed and motion for |
Marshall and another Macy ct al-Order modified
by directing relaxation by clerk, without costs OF mo-
ton and without costs OF appeal 10 either party. |
Dsvlin VS. shannon; Same VS.. samc-orders re-
vcrsed and order entered according 10 opinion with
$40 costs OF one appeal and disbursements op'non
Prouty vS the Lake shore and Michigan Southern
Railway Company -orders as nodded as in opinion.
Marchwald vs. Oceanic Steam Navigation Company.
Order reversed ~l.h9u, costs; order entered as IN
Ward Va James, implicated, &c--0rdcr reversed, |
without Order entered directing that the costs
claimed adjusted by the clerk In accordance with
the provisions the statute and tho decsion OF tho
Court the referred TO in the opinion. Opinion
Van AIKEN va Van AIKEN Order affirmed, with $40 |
costs. besides disbursements. OPINION by Judge |
Daniels
Keller VS. the Mayor, &c-Judgment affirmed, with |
costs Opinion bv Judge Brady.
Van Riper vs. Twced--Judgment and order affirmed |
Ball va tho Mayor, &c-order affirmed with $40 |
costs and disbursements. Opinion by Judge Brady.
affirmed, with $40 oosts and disbursements to be paid
by appellants attorney within twenty days afer tax
aon service Of copy Of order 10 DO entered here
In opinion by Judge Brady.
Same Same; Samc vs. Same.-Motion denied, |
without COSTS and order dated and entered October IT.
1875, 80 lar modified as TO deny costs. Memorandum
by Judge Daniels.
Howell VS.; Van siclcn Ct al, executors Judgment
affirmed, with costs Opinion by Judge Davis
Mayer w The People.-Judgment affirmed opinion
by Judge Davis
reversed with $40 costs and disbursements, with lib
erty 10 renew application for appointment OF receiver
upon further and proper proof opinion by Judgo
Maher vs. Meggs.-An the papers this matter may
be submitted to the present committee on Tor
their consideration In connection with such other
proofs may be produced before them, and the CON-
mttce may report their conclusions touching the char
Of the applicant at uturc term or ad1ournod
day 0ftho present term
Drew VS.. Tho Mayor, &c.-Motion to SO to the Court
Of Appeals dcncd with costs
SUPREME coURr-cHAMBEns.
BY Judge Donohue.
Lenhaur vs. Cohn.-Grantcd.
Bryan ct al vs. The Paoli Belt Company.--If the
parties will hand IN tho Eotce OF notion order and
papers which THIS order was entered will mako
order.
BY Judge Barrett
Matter OF Barry.--Thc writ must be dismissed and
the custody OF the child awarded TO tho respondent
Matter Of Gwyer.-Rcport confirmed and order
The Union Dime Savings Institution VS. Duryea-
Tho interest be dsalIowed, and tho taxation
Fizebuons VS. Ftxgibbons Report confirmed and
judgment, mcnsa OF thoro, granted, with alimony
and costs.
Plat VS. DegrawThs iacts charged to be irrelevant
are up for the purpose lin Degraw shall
turn 10 be bona hde holder) OF maxi q
Tor equitable set on against George w. Piutt. These
avermens, even II proven. may not MS agreed cntitlc
the paintif such sct on, but Il would scarcely do
plaintiff the benefits OF any doubt whether tho
matter Is irrelevant and should out unless
slbe bearing on tho result Motion dcnlcd without
costs.
Schultz vs.. Bodcwald.-Judgs wcstbrook did not
grant leave to fresh papers, nor has the
plaintn moved for leave to renew. She has simply
moved second time on fresh papers, for what has
been denied This be done. Apart that
therc good reason to deny the motion on the
merits thero was before. Tho defendant is
titled to have his examination passed upon by jury
True he admits what he seems TO have Denied but we
cannot make precedent 10 view Of the Court oil APP
peais' decisions for striking out general deniais,
Whether specific or by ignorance There must be COM
mon law evidence beorc jury. Notion dened with
Matter OF Welsh There is no just distinction be-
tween this and In re Phillips a Co., N Y, l6.
That seems to have been case OF repairing . side
walk-at all events, the sidewalk question ds-
cussed and II would not be scemy for any Court
fcror that Of last to draw subtle disnc-
ton which would touch upon the spirit Of the case
cited. Tho assessment must be vacated.
Jones vs.. The Mayor, &c.-Molion granted upon pay
notion aud the oroer should that The Court in
allowing the amendment, does not pass upon it's su
Mordant va Niles and Ano'hcr The provisions OF
2 s. 233, sections "A. 46. only Apply civil
actions IN county justices COURTS There is
nor in tho Revised Statutes under tho head OF
Summary Proceedings. On the contrary, In
second edition, $50 sections %, a. find she
words ..as the time appointed In said summons"
This being SO, Niles regular and equity has never
exercised Jurisdiction In these proceedings merely
open q default. Mordant had ample time TO appear
defend, and thefe fraud In the conduct Of
the proceedings Besides, Mordant does not como In
with clean nands In view Of the manner in which he
obtained possession The motion 10 continue the in
junction Denied and the temporary Injunction dis
Bainbridgc va Bcrne-Motion to vaoate for irregu-
larty denied. The default may be opened upon pay
motion and the expenses OF the plaintiff In coming
from and returning Baltimore to attend the tr,a
peremptoriiy on the second Monday OF November,
otherwise denied, with $40 costs
West Nickerson.-Thc default should be opened
without coets and without conditions as TO tho judg-
ment standing IS security The default ought not 10
havo been taken in view Of the agreement. Mr. II.
says no Knows nothing OF such agreement, but no
has not heard from his representative.
Matter OF Barnctt---There seems 10 have been somo
Go; How, so4; 4 Reyes o6l But none Oi Inc cases
doubt where the matter s In court morely
before judicial officer out OF court, section OF tho
Code applies. The present proceeding was In tho
The writ was returnabe thereto, but the final
was ' aea 'dssc @
Morrison vs. Grecn The claim is not for the SER
vices, but for the disbursements IL 10 alleged
that defendant requested these outays, that ho
promised to pay them; nor are they distinctly alleged
sisted part OF statements orally made individual
members. This looks very like lobbying. Upon the
whole unable to say that the demurrer Is abso
utcly frivolous and think rs entitled to an argu-
mcnt at Special Term. Motion dencd with $40
Tho Cambridge Valley National Bank va. Matthcws-
| do not see why the order OF July 10 $50 lar as II
places this the short calcndar was made AS
against the maker, in view OF the deliberate denial by
Mr. Justice Donohue OF the motion TO place II such
calendar But as tho order made suppose the
plaintiff should be deprived Of the benefit thereof
merely because no little late Ia attending tho
circuit only lair 10 treat the matter though
instead permitting II 10 be marked down the dcend
ant had dismissed the complaint. In that event tho
Court would have imposed as much cossas the dccnd-
would have pay TO DC lot In when thoy deiaucd.
the case may therefore. be restored the short
calendar for tho first Friday OF November payment
of $50 within five days
Wormscr VS.. Honman.-I do not upon what
principle the deicndant hoped to sustain this
without even allegation OF insolvency The defend
art though not charged with insolvency. swears that
he is worth $4,000 The motion must be Denied with
$40 costs
Norscn w. Ducukcl ct al-No allegation Of proof OF
Mrs. Curries' insolvency Her AFFIDAVIT denied
that she worth $4,000 Motion denied with $40
costs.
spaud,ng vs. Martini do not think Mr. Cudlipp
sustain hrs position. but no may decire 10 tako
the opinion OF an appellate court, win not shut him
out The default may DO opened on payment Of trial