The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-26
DECISIONS.
SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS.


BY Judge Barrett
Fearing VS. Cornish Miller VS.. Cornish Morgan vs.
Wells ct III Judgment granted.
The People, &c, VS. ROBBIE ct aL-The application
must BIO denied
Tuthill vs.. McGovern.-Motion denied
Tho Mayor, &c, vs. Stoford.-The plaintiff may
move for an injunction Qf SO adviscd) upon those
papers, but think the prospects OF doubt
granted without hearing the defendant.
Burnham vs.. Adriance; Spring vs. spaulding; Same
Won Schiller VS. Won schiller Counsel fee OF $50
and allmony at the rate Of IS per week awarded.
watrous vs. Fernbacher Extra allowance Of Ave per
Cutting vs. stovens-Motion for receiver granted
Natter Of the application Of the Department Of Public
Works &c. relative TO laying out street, running
parallel to 155th street, in the city OF New York.
eastery from Kngsbridse road across Tenth avenue to
the Boulevard, near tho Harlem River, &c-Report
confirmed and order granted
Rasines VS. Ambrose ct alt would be grossly in
equitable TO deprive Mills Ambrose of the right 70 do
fend between vyso and themselves there
why they should assume the mortgage, aud at
all the plaintiff did takc title upon the faith
OF such assumption. They ought TO be allowed to de-
fend tho claim for deficiency payment Of SIS
costs and $40 costs OF motion Order TO be settled
notice.
| Matter OF Conover-I am not satisfied with tho
proofs Of identity and age This mode Of taking testi
nony in such matters very unsatisfactory and why
feel justified in directing the payment OF tho money
Tyler vs. The Board of Revision.-The Court Of APP
peas has awarded full costs in Such is its
Judgment embodied in each remitttur II Is not for
the Court below TO that the respondent shall have
| tions That was matter upon which tho
judgment OF the Court of Appeals should have been
specially invoked The motion must be denied, with
| $40 costs Of one motion.
| BY Judge Donohue.
Matter Of the sale OF the estate OF Martha Cena
| Brown ct al. tiniantsl-Motion denied.
Amcrman vs. Barlow. Order granted denying mo-
tion.
| The Empire Building and Mutual Loan Association
4 ct al Sevcns.-0rder granted.
Matter OF William II. Nissan, &c-Order signed
| nrming report and discharging trustee.
BY Judge Lawrence.
Yerks VS.. Salomon-lf correctly understand coun-
sci this has been settled each party now
desires insert something in the which does
appear in the stenosrapher's minutes. As have
means Of asccrtaning the details OF the trial. and my
memory does not enable to determine which party
is right, must be guided by the notes of the stem
ographcr. The amendment cannot BIO granted except
BY Judge Brady.
| Matter OF tho application Of Bernard 8. Levy for
writ of mandamus. Opinion
| WOODS vs. Birdsali-The aindavits submitted on The
releasing extremely contradictory aud render trial
ditions Judgment and proceedings To stand secu-
ry defendant 10 accept notice OF trial for May Term;
cause to be placed the short calendar; defendants
pay SO costs OF the motion Order 10 be submitted to
me on the 9th OF april by leaving al Chambers
| Costs to be paid on April 20, 1870
SUPREME coURT--cIRcUrr-PARr /.
BY Judge Lawrence.
Mcdonnell vs. The Mayor, &c-Motion for a now trial
i.iIa w. ward-Motion for rcargument denied.
/ Mcdonnell vs. Ml!on CT al Complaint dismissed as
1 TO the defendants Dillon Smith and Replcy.
| SUPREME coURT-sPxcIAL TERM.
BY Judge Iarrcmorc.
The Central Railrond Company of New Jersey VS..
I The RocEiand County National Bank ct al-Findngs
and decree signed. An allowance OF $40 granted to
plaintiff
The Real Estate Trust Company vs.. RAIDER .. al.
Findings and decree signed
SUPERIOR coURT-sPEcIAL TERM
BY Judge Spcir
Matilda t. Dugan Patrick Call1ghan,-I see no
the papers submitted why the examination
III Thomas Dugan and John J. Mct;urk should be had
The motion 10 set aside the order must he granted.
nuscnbury Hitler ct al-Let the several parties in
interest appear before me the 26th OF April and
show why injunction order should not issue
against the defendant behalf OF Charles Dusenbury
Ettlingcr Stegmullcr ct aL-Let all procc ed,ngs
be stayed this action The attorneys tho parties
will appear before and explain the irregularities In
the proceedings
Berthe ct al va Smith ct al-rhe question pro-
posed must be answered. II may throw some light
upon the delivery OF tho deed.
Herman VS. Meyher -Undcrtaking approved.
lines VS.. Rowe Ct al-Ordcr vacated and set aside
Gray vs.. Bcnsci ct al-Rcmittur hled.
Mcthesius w, Bayard Reference ordered
Beach vs. Emery: PInkshon VS.. The Lazarus and
Morris Spectacle and Eye Glass Company; Patt Ct al
vs. Meyer ct al. Platt ct al VS. Levy ct aL-Ordcrs
granted.
We'll VS. Fisher ct aL-Fndingf settled and hlcd
Chamberlain &c, VS.. Chamberian.--Findn of
fact and conclusions OF law settled and filed.
MARINE couRr-cHAMDERs
BY Judge coepp.
GIN VS. Neyer.--Moton denied, with SO costs
HUGHES vs. Hardcnbrook; Webb VS.. ycndelssohn:
Trnbce vs. rranor; Hale VS.. Hcyman; Eagle vs. Pro.
The Bulls Head Bank VS.. Milgan. Motion for judy
ment granted
Norris va Hugo-Nctior granted.
Tho American Tract Society vs. Grccn-Mot.on TO