The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-07
DECISIONS.
IRENE CoURT-CHAAfBERs
By Judge Barrett.

Spratt VS. Charlottesville motion must be granted.
Hitler Smith. -lrooi uf service Of these motion
papers is wanting except as to defendant Raphael
Gailaud VS.. Stehbns-fhcre u not particle Of evil
dcnce that the representations we're iasc but simply
that the defendant has refused 10 comply with his
tract with the company. Tine rest h. mere avcrmcnt
without proof Motion granted, with $40 costs
Matter of the Working Church Publishing Com
pany. Motion granted but before tho or,lcr is signed
must have some proof OF the assets. 80 as 10 Xix bond.
Harriet VS. Emerson.-Monon gian,cd Tor second
FRIDAY.
Horton Va. Chivc.-Thc plaintif Il mistaken in his
practice the order 10 snow cause " rot TO attach
the defendant bring HIM be fore The Court punish
him directly contempt upon afdavt,) the papers
must be served upon the defendant personally.
Tho LaIl'n ana Rand Powder Company VS.. Gallau-
dct-Notion granted Tor second Friday.
Gailaud ". Sicbbins and anot hcr.-order settled.
Roscnbaum " Young The painrin proceeded IN
disregard OF the rules OF the Court, and even then hc
made ont OF real necessity. The mo.ion
10 vacatu must be granted, with $40 costs
nrinkwOrth vs. Hcnvxen, Jr.-l think that as there
l. not even Suggestion OF bad faith or motive, but
clear o. nadvcrience u IS but reasonable cxcf
OF discretion TO permit what in substance but
Tho recalling o, the witnesses. The motion mus. be
granted on payment OF slO costs OF opposing.
Gaity ". Barlow. Sc.--Thc stipulation offered docs
not meet the requirements Of the motion. Tue plain
TINS witnesses are only prove tho board aud
lodging and Its value, but also 10 negative the very
facts which defendants say that their witnesses viii
prove. T. Cruel treatment, rendering cohabiintion
dangerous; neglect 10 properly provide Tor the wife
and acqulcsccucc in what plaintiff was doing-al ma
teral facts Motion denied, with $40 costs.
In tho Matter OF Trcdwcll--Thc papers have been
scut by express, without any explanation OF nt
nation To how or Tor what purpose they were sent
The clerk Is, ercorc, directed TO no them with the
memorandum.
Powers vs. Otard.-Mr. Batcman's appearance was
at time wncn he had received actual notice OF the
revocation OF his power Of attorney. But apart from
that the question was fully disposed OF by Judge Law
renee and again by Judge Donohuc. II Is quite pain
That this IL an effort TO obtain reargument Of sub
santially the questions which bavc been fully
and deliberately disposed or Motion denied, with $40
costs.
The Brett Lithographing Company VS.. Zcmansky =
The dccndants afiavts admit that the trial will in
voIve the examination OF a long account The fact
that, beside such examination, the measure OF dam
ages the claim will be nice question. docs
not initiate against the right 10 reference Motion
granted and cause referred.
Nelson vs. Thwing.-The defendant Us not entitled TO
a bill OF particulars OF the So 500 damages claimed. AS
TO the rest. the bill Is sufficient enable him TO
swcr but perhaps he rs entitled before going 10 trial.
10 the dates OF the more In dctai, and to
items making up the carriage hire. tccprams and
counsel lees. The defendant may take order for
further Dill In these respects 10 be furnished within
such time the paintiM may indicate tho trial DO
stayed until II Is furnished and with leave 10 defend
ant 10 amend hts answer, " so advised within ten
days alter such bill - furnished Tho present stay Is
vacated or limited 20 The trial No costs.
Miller Hovcy.-Thc statute says that the action
shall have preference. ana may be made ont OF its
order IL does not limit the right 10 sdc nor con-
Ter upon Of the parties 10 the exclusion Of
the other Notion granted. aud las suggested by coun
sch set down Tor trial en- the nrst Monday Of
juno.
Basselmanp vs. GunarL Tho planlTs story y de-