The New York herald., 1876-11-25
DECISIONS.
SUPREME couRT-cHAMBEus.

DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURT-cHAMBEus.
BY Judge Donohue.
Rcmington VS.. Wcstcrrpann. order granted.
By Judge Van Worst.
Vanderbilt ys. Dnseth.-Motion granted.
BY Judge Barrett
Mason vs. Winfield Findings settled.
Shea VS.. Shea-Decree granted.
Railroad Compahy.-There Is no reason why
should grant any such order AS that asked for.
| BY Judge Lawrence
The peopIc, &c, VS.. owcrs.-Memorandum.
Horwtz vs. Observation-Disclosures Is required.
Howard Lansing; Bnuse IS Wood and The So
cieiy for the Reformation OF Juvenile Delinquents
Carroli.-Oriers granted.
Rucher W. the New York, Housatonic and n. Rail-
road Company Judgment granted.
Mott vs. Jones.--How can guardian consent?
Repinerz vs.. smith ct al. smith Va smith; Amer
" simmons; White vs. Devlin; Lewis VS. stadier;
Borland VS. Badger: Duryca Ackerman Conkln
vs. Barmore The Bank off, avngsvs. Partridge ct al
Hunt vs.. smith; johnson vs. Werner; BUTTS v. Ely;
Sperry VS. rhc Hargravc Manufacturing Company, aud
The Ridgewood Insurance Company VS.. Spears
Granted.
Kelley VS. Van Natten-The amount OF bail in this
should be lett blank IN tho proposed order, and
should he liked by the Court.
schellenschngger VS. schellen schlagger Referred
to X. T. Farrell 10 ascertain and report proper amount
to be allowed the plaintiff Tor weekly support. &c
and what. ifany, counsel lee should be allowed 10 the
planlh
Garrett VS. Garne,I-rhis matter is referred to
Charles Price, to take proofs and 10 report what II any
SUN, should DO allowed TO the defendant for alimony
and counsel fee.
blank in the twelfth paragraph OF the reicrees report
In the matter Of Nostrand-This motion must bo
denied The order OF the presiding Justice was maie
on The 9th day December, 1875, and docke,ed the
payment tho counsel Ice Of $3.50 to NJ h. g. Ripley,
personally 1he allegations that this order made
after the plantn, the action OF Nostrand Nos
trand, had revoked tho authority 10 Mr. Ripley to act
her attorney is most positively denied. Inc counsel
leo belonged Mr.. Ripley personally and ire
spcctivc Of the payments which may have been
made HIM by the plaintiff / find nothing In tho
order OF Mr. Justice Barrett which is with
this view. There appears therefore, TO be no good
reason tor allowing ne receiver or the panth IN the
this action. Motion Denied but as the moving party
rs without costs.
Solomon vs. Hrshheld attention OF counsel In
this called TO the language OF the Chancellor as
quoted in Graham's Practice, page 9l5 (see Pages
Reports p. 40) Before this order can be granted
An affidavit stating the circumstances OF the paintn
more fully be laid before the Court II should
also appear whether the plaintiff is married woman
aud whether II she has husband he is not OF suf-
cent pecunary ability to prosecute this action notice
should be gwen 10 the other sIdo.
Matters OF William Fowey and Thomas Cafey.-
Counsel will please furnish me with reference to the
authority which he relies asking for this order
IL is matter Of under the statute to grant
the order. In Isnard VS.. Careaux l, page 40 Chan
ceor waworih held that notice Of such an applica-
tion must DO given to tho opposite party 1 am not
satisfied on the petition stands that this
IN which the Court should exercise tho power vested
in IL by the statute. II counsel desire order TO
show cause why the application should be granted
such order will be made and after hearing the
other side tho Court will be enabled 10 pass more intel
lceny upon the question tnah ~ possibly eau 40 on
parlc statement
In tho matter OF Rau.-Assuming that the offence
for which The prisoners wcrc apprehcnded and held
was not SO specifically stated Us to have warranted
their conviction upon an indictment found against
them as the prisoners pleaded guilty to tho charge,
wish 10 hear counsel further upon the point whether
the ulca OF guilty did any technical error
upon the point whether such error If reversible at
ali can he reviewed elsewhere than at the General Term
| upon certiorari
SUPERIOR CoURT-sPECIAL TERM.
BY Judge Speir.
Willard vs. Stebbins. Motion denied, tho undertak-
| ing does not comply with the statute.
| Wyckon vs. oConnor.-Moton for reference de-
ned OF the raised by the plcaungs should
be first settled by the Court
Croscmens Hackney. Ordered on day calendar
Agnew vs. Keith ct a. mos i and 2l-Rsport OF
referee confirmed, and judgment OF foreclosure and
sale ordered.
&1U costs TO defendant
Whomngton ct al vs.. The Forty-sccond Street and
Grand Street Ferry Railroad Company.-Ordered on
iria calendar Tor first Monday OF December.
Tnman Alfonso ct aL-0rdcr denying motion,
Inscrsoil VS. The Tenth National Bank-Default
opened without cesls TO either party
COMMON PLEAs--sPEcIAL TERM.
by Judge Van Brunt
Davis vs. Davis-Findings must be settled on notice
MARINE CoURT-CHAMBRRs.
BY Judge McAdam.
Deihl; Clinton Wire Cloth Company vs. Stouien-
neutrality-suspicious. hed
Ligman VS. Roach Phelps vs.. Bsekman-seo in
dorsement papers
Wed VS.. Merchants Despatch Company.-Commis-
sion ordered.
Larncr vs. Ebing; Abcrn Llado-Motion
granted.
Holman vs. Do vinue.--Thc plaintiff being
resident attorney liable for 500 motion TO
compel pay ment granted.
| Hughes Va O'Donnell pwo acknowledgement or
| demurrer
Cohen VS.. Mcconnell - Amendmont allowed.
/ Hccht VS.. Gumbrech. Recover appointed.
| Adams Harrson.-Keierred TO +. w. Loew.
Dirkelspel VS.. Harmbcrgcr Commission ordered.
| Hines VS. Kennedy. Notion to open default dc.
MED.
| Andrews VS.. Hcftz-Motion denied, with costs.
1 Rugsley VS.. O'DonnclL order 10 pay moneys.
!! Bastgcn VS. Mcrtling ng-Default noted.
| Post VS.. Sloane Action denied.
| Pcllcrtreau Smith; Duyckinck vs. Carroll! Wood
ward W.. Frigelstock; DAVIS vs. Van Clie; Duryea
| Shannon Sloan Worth; Bernstein VS.. Mccoy;
Clark Graber: Barnuger va Petshaw; Stemner VS..
| Conner; Dix vs. Totaus. Cary vs. Koch; Post vs.
| Sloan; Andrews Herts; Kahn vs. speiglc-Orders
| granted