The New York herald., 1876-12-19

Welsh The Flushing Railroad Company. y.-Motion
granted, but without prejudice. Opinion.
Tolles vs. The Excelsior Gas Machine Company
Application granted as amended.
Landesman vs.. Honman.-Motion granted See
opinion.
Bolheimcr VS. Schuyler. Granted condisonally.
See opinion.
Hodges vs. Porter-see opinion.
Rose VS.. King.-This motion was made too late and
must be denied. Stay vacated.
Won Cleef vs.. Husted--fhis cause not being at issue,
the items OF SIS and $50 were properly disallowed
The $40 costs 10 abide event should have been allowed
Ordered accordingly.
Won Hem vs. Elxcrs-This case unusual in
OF It's features, and on the question Of costs warrants
departure from the general rule that receiver prose-
costs, II defeated. think he should be compelled to
pay disbursements In this action necessarily made and
10 be taxed. Motion granted on such payment being
made.
The Sisters OF Charity Kelly The allowance will
be granted TO be paid out OF the estate not otherwise.
Matter OF l23d street. &c. matter OF Dominick and
Cutting VS.. Curtis.-GraDted
Luddng,on vs.. slauson.-should be done oy an order
to show cause, Ac
Matter OF the Metropolitan Proceedings
adjourned TO December 10, 1876, at 1O16 AN.
Woomsen vs. Hoffman This motion is denied be-
defendant declared under oath that the mortgage
was valid. Motion denied with $40 costs
scherenbcrg VS.. Bschon Referees report con-
frmed, with allowance OF referees fees and disburse
menis to be taxed Memoyandum.
Williams VS. Halsey.-Rcieree' fees and disburse-
mcnts allowed Memorandum.
Plnkernclli vs. Bischon, Jr.--ln this exccp.
tons were lcd or taken 10 the referees report There
is little doubt OF the justice Of the referees conclusions
that IN reference to costs. The claim herein was
unreasonaby resisted II was properly contested and
IL was reduced The plaintiff is only emitted 10
therefore, the fees Of the referee and necessary
disbursements to be taxed. Code s. 81. Ordered
accordingly, aud that the report be confirmed.
Darling vs. Haisey.-ln this matter the demand
was resisted, l think, unreasonaby. The claim Of
the pant on the estate was recognized by the testa-
tor and referred IN her will stated the argu
ment This incident wthdraws this case from The
general rule applicable TO similar proceedings and
warrants an award OF costs ana an allowance to be
pui Out of lie est nay
proper inquiry established, doubtless, the amount Of
the clam which alone undlsputed, IT. indeed, any
thing was in controversy The claim was not gain
saa by any proof, and the plaintiff should not be sub
jeced to The expense Of proving her rights Costs and
an allowance oil $25 granted Ordered accordingly.
BY Judge Barrett.
Tolos vs. The Excelsior Gas Machine Company
Application granted as amended.
BY Judge Donohue
jenkins vs.. Leubuscher.--This case is made up
far from the iacts that the stenographer's notes
should be substituted cr the So ordered and the
BY Judge Lawrence.
Matter OF Moses and anoIher-l will grant an order
slbIey VS. Same matter OF Halberstadt; matter OF
Aucbmuty; matter OF the Second Baptist church of
Harlem; matter of the Benevolent Hebrew, &c, So
ccty matter OF the Central Presbyterian Church aud
matter Of the Congregation Shaari Tedih Orders
granted
Roe vs.. Roe. .-Opinion.
Brit,on VS.. Bradncr.-Case and amendments as
settled.
Matter of Donrg orandum for counsel
Matter Of Durfee.-I wish TO SEQ counsel in this
Kidd vs. Bristow receiver will be appointed and
the injunction continued. II counsel agree upon
proper person 10 be appointed receiver will APP
point him, and such agreement would bo most satis-
factory to the Court Memorandum.
Matter Of the Suspension Bridge-The report Of the
Commissioners must bo confirmed. Memorandum.
Phelps vs. Platt ct aL-The defendant rs, / think,
entitled to somc allowance or the discontinuancc. An
allowance Of $500 is granted (Coin vs.. Coke, how.,
616)
Murphy VS.. Moses-The order OF October %, 1876,
may be modified SO TO allow the receiver 10 make
payments not exceeding $500 at any ume without APP
plication for leave to.
Grcata vs.. The Mayor, &c.-I adhere to the views
expressed upon the trial relative to the
OF the agreement between Mr. Elder and the CITY, The
motion for a new trial is therefore denied
Bumstead vs.. Hoadey-rhe third subdivision OF
section SO7 OF the Code refers, IN my opinion all the
lDterrogat0rics which annexed 10 q comm isson,
and but charge for drawing such interrogaiorics
be made. The adjustment OF the clerk must be
tered to conform to that view.