The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-06

A batch OF decisions, some sixty altogether, was
handed down yesterday by tho Supreme Court General
Term Judges Most decisions in argued at
the last term of the court, the particulars OF which
published at the time OF their respective trials
There given below abstract OF the important
opinions
Some weeks ago the Board Of Education applied
to the Supreme Court for peremptory mauda-
mus to compel the Comptroller to deposit with the
City Chamberlain subject their order the moneys
their credit in tho Treasury. This denied and tho
appeal by the Board argued before the General
Term plaintiffs insisting that tho moneys appropria ted
70 their department subject their control and
that they should be paid according TO the OF 1884,
by Chamberlain drafts signed by their President
&c. In giving the opinion OF the Court yesterday,
Judge Brady says that II this legislative scheme 10
not carried out the bills Of the Board only
be paid Comptrollers warrant signed
only after examination OF the vouchers by the auditor
approved by the Comptroller and filed in the finance
department. The court holds that the Board have a
right to draw upon tho Chamberlain for tho to
their credit required The order below Is reversed
With stay pending decision by the Court Of Appeals
in the case Of Root Va Tappan, involving . similar
question.
George Mclaughlin, Who held position foreman
Of Hook and Ladder Company No. 2 and was some time
ago dismissed from the Fro Department charge OF
conduct prejudIc to good order, applied TO the
preme Court for writ ofccrtiorar which allowed
return to the writ was made by the Board or Fire Com
missioners which set forth that Mclaughlin had been
tried and found guilty Of selling portion OF his salary
amounting TO $45 to Richard Baxter, payable in
ono month"; no part Of which money had been repaid.
In the argument on appeal II was contcnded by his
counsel, Douglas A. Levien, Jr, that no rule or
regulation Of the department in existence at the
time had been violated, and that there evidence
10 sustain the alleged charge; that the Court had the
power to review on this appeal the merits and were
not bound TO consider only the question OF jurisdiction
The General Term susiains tho position OF counsel and
orders that Mclaughlin be relnstated The decision Ia
m important one settling as u does the rights and
powers Of the Commissioners over the uniformed
force
Otie Overs will and second codicil-thc latter revok
Ing bcouest 70 william H. Booth and Others infants,
and next Of kiD-were admitted 70 probate by tho
Surrogate The infants not cited, did not appear
and had no opportunity to contest the VIII Henry
Booth guardian OF the infants applied TO The suro
gate time acrward TO no heard on proof Of undue
influence and unsoundncss OF mind which was denied,
and appeal taken. the executors being defcndans
Judge Daniels, giving the opinion OF the General ierm
says the application made with due diligence, and
The Surrogate empowered TO take such proofs ana
The order below must be reversed with cost out OF The
Estate, spoedy decision, being for the ocncns OF AL
In The suit OF the Relief rirc Insurance Company
The New York Board Of Fire Underwriters me
plaintiffs insured steamboats, at lower rates than
those fixed by the Board. Plaintiffs were summoned
before the board and they eontcnded that fixing rates
against public policy and beyond the power OF the
Board, whercupon they were expelled and they applied
70 the Court below for order to rcInstatc them,
which denied. The matter came before the Cen
rral Term appeal aud the decision given through
Judge Daniels Is that plaintiffs were rightly expelled
The object Of the Board, no says Is not pccun'ary
profit but uniformity in policies, which includes uni
iormny in rates, and the case Is different from ono
where the corporators have interests the property
OF the association. judgment confirmed.
The Sisters OF Charity or ST. Vincent dc Paul were
bequeated legacy BY John Kelly. The will was OPP
posed by Mary Kelly and others, and the Surrogate
refused aunt il 10 probate II appeared that the
lcstators name was IN printed form, In the body Of
The will alter the tcstamentary disposition his prop
srsy but not at The end oil the clause appointing
executors and not before the attcsiation clause There
a as no proof that the testator sgncd that
The name his. but he once took the paper out Of
his uockct before and said that his will.
rbo sisters appealed and Judge Brady gives the opinion
bold,pq that the will must be admitted 10 probate and
Ihat II is good in all parts before the name, but inop
prativc q what follows
Decision was given the appeal by plaintiff from
ANAL verdict in his favor In the suit o. Aaron Gcnons