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

Townsend a. TO what plaintls testified 10 upon the
trial rs OF moment ct PLAIN 10 admit OF nrSu
ment that, upon the undsnied course OF dealing and
understanding set forth In the afidavits OF Strauss
and Leopold, an order Of arrest will not iie The
motion must be granted, with $50 costs OF one
motion.
Ida Ward VS. Francis T.. Ward. Report now con.
iirmed and judgment Of divorce granted TO plaintiff
Clark VS. Clark.-The papers on which the order oil
publication was granted and the order should have
been submitted But the testimony insufficient In
Itself and II has been too careIessly taken The record
IS too full OF erasures and interncatons both before
and after the reference and there must be greater care
and precision to justify 30 important decree az that
asked for.
Whitehead Kennedy. VI did not express the opin
ion that married woman could not. by proper in
strumcnt, charge her separate estate. The ruling
simply took the fact OF covertnrc into consideration
with the necessity for special and unusual provisions
m the undertaking. and the doubt which tho ruling In
Wooiscy VS.. Brown cast upon her responsibility That
ana the entire insufcicncy OF the surety as matter
OF fact was the OF tho rejection, and moth
| ing TO alter my decision.
| Kelley VS. Mathews-Aithough the General Term
gave defendant leave TO renew further papers. do
not see that their has been strengthened except
in matters OF form. As the plaintiff valves the
charge OF bad construction, and defendants admit
collision there Is nothing left but tho question OF
negligence and damage. On the former, defendants
have but three eye witnesses and the plaintiff eight on
the latter defendants had eleven but three Of whom
are OF real mportancevix, thr three who iaadc the
REPAIRS; plaintiff u like number, OF about the same
character and importance eight OF defendants eleven
On this head DEFENDANTS entitled to but little favor
as they rer.v@ . have the damage estimated, and
make 'esy ,sproper statement In that connection
Upon the whole The motion should be denied without
waive all charges OF improper construction and TO
nit the testimony Of defendants to be taken
on ten days notice before Judge in chambers IN
Buffalo In ike manner and with tho elect, or II
taken conditionaly, and to be read upon the trial.
without objection except as 10 substance.
The Gilbert and Baker Manufacturing Company vs.
Abbott Ct. aLThc defendants offer stipuatc not to
dispute the trial the items of plaintiffs bill either
10 number, character. value or price, except Two
certain charges Of interest On such stipulation being
filed The motion will be denied with COSTS Besides It
is very doubtful whether under well settled rulc thero
mnrC IA tam vol flp mach M
and generator put in.
straka IS. The New York Cooperative Cigar manu-
featuring Company Motion tor injunction denied and
temporary injunction dissolved, with $40 costs.
The Sun Mutual Insurance Company HubbclL--
There is nothing IN the calling for reply and
the motion must be denied, with $40 costs
Mears vs.. Frecd.-Mution granted in this suit, and
ceiver mist be appointed nut neither OF the parties
will be appointed such receiver II the parties
upon perfectly dsnercstca receiver he will be
appointed; II not the Court will appoint such receiver
$40 costs Of motion TO ABIDE the event.
Boardman Of al. vs. The Lake shore and Michigan
South I'm Railroad Company account need
be taken in order 10 settle the principles
upon which the ripnir Of the parties
TO be determined, and It IS not even
certain that an account will DO essential to an effective
decree H. In the course Of he trial II should
out If an account should be necessary carry the
Judgment into elect the Special Term has ample power
IN the premises Besides on the papers before me the
present motion open to the objection OF laches and
the opposing affidavit claims that II is made for tho
purpose OF delay. The motions must be denied, with
$40 costs, in one case
n
opinion that the rclerce right and that the defend
ants cannot be held; at the time there
looking very like disregard Of the injunction and tho
plaintiffs were justified In moving and ought not to be
mulced in costs. The DEFENDANTS by little activity
VIII ch high regard for tho order of the Court would
have cnused them TO exhibit, might have prevented
what done with all this attendant litigation and
pcnses, and consequently they ought recover
their costs disbursements The exceptions are over
ruled and the reerccs report confirmed except as
the costs and the motion Is denied without costs
Sherwood VS.. Sherwood, &c-The defendants claim
IL no In sell he wi nd trado
pay debts, that is substantially TO pay himself Yet
IN his answer he that the good will worthless
and denies that his tcstaor owned patent right for
paper called 'T,n evidently referring this trade
mark Thus his present statement that unless he is
totally lost TO the estate does seem To be in
eenuous Tho fact Is, the defendant executor
took possession OF the business and claims
tinued II for his own account Notwithstanding clause
in the will directing him 10 share the profits with the
,esator's widow, and he admits The use OF both the
good will and the srade mark, which, his
duty TO CO serve. do not think the facts
prcscntcdby the defendant that he ought pending the
tria TO be permitted TO auction Off sell these
Motion granted with COSTS but with leave to the de-
icndant, # successful before the referee, to
dissolve.
Tuth,ll VS. Ombcrson.-I think, in view OF the mem.
oranduin made on The decision OF the motion for re-
that the plaintiffs should have an opportunity
of meeting the difficulty suggested by Judge Donohue
general principles the plaintiffs ought to be per-
mttted to frame their complaint rs mny seem to them
10 be best wfl, therefore, permit the amendment,
upon paymcn OF the OF the the present
time (but without any extra aowancc) and $40 costs
tho motion for decree and injunction. Iwsh II to be
distinctly understood, however that do pass any
question with respect 10 the value OF the complaint as
thus amended, simply allow the plaintiffs 10 plead dc
novo.
Wallace 4 Sons Castlo--The answer, while it ig-
the plaintiff q corporation yet admits by
denying that between July 1875 and July 20, 1878,
the defendants soId Tor the benefit OF the
plaintiffs that again OF the corporation specified
the caption goods OF the value OF $666 &c. That
admission sufficient TO cntitlc the plaintiff TO rest But.
further think tho corporate existence Of paintins
VIVA mr. q
tcut which read in evidence, and OF this State,
found IN the adjudged cases. Motion for now trial
BY Judge Lawrence.
In the matter of Allcn in the matter OF Bloome in
matter OF Meredith; in tho matter Of Earlc in tho
matter OF Higgins; the matter OF Abrey; in tho mat
matter Of Hyde; IN the matter Of stockwelI in Tho
matter OF D0nnelly; in the matter 0i Curtis In the
matter OF Hcrtman in the matter OF Pond and In the
matter Of Schultz two ordcrsl-Orders DENYING
tons granted.
SUPREME CoURT-CIRCUrT-PART3
BY Judge I.arrcmorc
southwickys The Frs. National Bank Of Memphis.
SUPERIOR coURT-spECIAL TERM.
BY Judge Scdgwick
Murray VS.. Mitchell 1T al.-Rcfcrec's report con-
nrmcd and judgment OF foreclosure and sale ordered
Dielz vs.. Farish.-Motion granted think the de-
PENDANT Is entitled TO general stay Of procc dings
Negus ct al. VS.. Moore u aL-Mouon granted, with
out costs
MISSISSIPPI kniIrOau
pany.--Motion to open Judgment granted upon pay
OF $40 costs and disbursements OF where de-
fault taken.
The Madison Avenue Baptist Church VS. The Baptist
Church in Oliver strccL-Urdered that 81, 500 addi-
tioual security be ilcd.
The National Park Bank VS.. Grinst; Bryce Aldncr,
Jr. Crawford VS. SANFORD
Bringley vs.. Anderson.-Ordcred on short calendar
Walters CT al VS. Barnard. --Intcrrogatoric settled
Conner vs.. Gavin.-Ordcr that plaintiff lilo security
for costs.
Nathan vs. Hcngel-Dcfcndant discharged from
custody.
Struppman ct al vs. Mullcr.-ordcr continuing J. c.
julius Langbein receiver. &c.
The National Trust Company Roberts ct al.--Case
and exceptions cred on lille nunc pro tune
Merrill VS. Beach ct al Johnston VS. Hallgan; Cert
Hoe; Morrssey VS.. Kiraly ct al Levy ct al
Burgess; Robinson Tho Middlehed Marble Co.
Ross VS. Harden; Parsons VS.. Sutton ct al Gambler,
Jr., The Merchants Fire Insurance Co. Gambler,
Jr. VS.. The Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company;
Gambler i. The Mechanics and Traders Fire In
surancc Company; Gambler, Jr., VS.. The Commercial
Fire Insurance Company; 0'Brien, &C., VS.. The Me-
chnnics and Traders' Fire Insurance CompanY;