The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-12-22
DECISIONS.
, SUPREME CoURr-cuAMBERs.

\ BY Judge Lawrence
| Rynning RynninS.-Rcport OF rcieree con
nrmcd: AMI Judgment OF divorce granted % "a
In the natter &c.. Of A,tlinger Tho report OF th'
referee must be confirmed Grants case, Adolf
sllelz VS.. Grecn.-l shall refer this matter to Moses
Ety. 10 take proof OF the facts stated IN the adAvits
and 10 report the same, with his opinion, TO Tho
/ Court.
| smith vs. McNamara.-fhe receiver having boeI
appointed by the Court oi ChaGcery OF the state o
Now jersey 40 think It would DO proper ior me
| 10 make tho order asked for. -
Hence vs. heuze-I cannot receive tho additional
proof because II taken before notary public and
before the referee There does not appear 10 Dt
any proof that action Tor divorce has been brous ~
against the plaintiff, or Ju igment oil divorce entered
therein aga:nst the painful IN favor Of TIC oeendauI
tsce Laws OF 1917, 2 80 .v
In the matter OF saueriee; Camp va Aube-
Granted.
Tompkins va Purccll.-I think the objection Is no,
well TAKEN think the ming v The transcript makes
the judgment ono Of this Court
SUPREME couIT-spsciAL TERM.
by Judge Van Brunt.
Locke vs. Tilcy ct aL-Casc settled.
SUPERIOR coUar-sPEcIAL TERM.
BY Judge Sedgwicx.
Hathaway vs. Russell THEIRS Is no cause OF acuon
against defendant Watson, and no reason why he
should DO made DEFENDANT There should DC no IN
junction 10 No referee - asked Tor, and on
the fucts ntcd II would not be proper 10 appoint
one. The injunction should not therefore Restrain
the Russell from collecting the sums on the
bid tho defendant Russell from parting with or trans
ferrng my money property OF the former business
OF Allen Co, in his possession or hereafter to
come into bis hands II would not DC proper 10
state what particular these are l am not con-
yinced that whole vi the $500 duo from Watson -
the properly OF tho former business. Perhaps II u
action ut law by the present plaintin woul1
DO the proper remedy.
Starr vs.. The Southern Express Company.-From q
nero Inspection oi the deposition think tho amount
charged Wy commissioner too great, but there may
have pcen special circumstances that JUSTIFIED II.
ha rafpu daDIn ms "A Va a q
special circumstances by affidavit.
Fifth National Bank vs. Graf OF al-Order denying
Stay. &c
Bryan vs.. Bryan OF ai.-Urdcr appointing William
B. Wenbert0n guardian sd lilem OF James und Daniel
Bryan, infant defendants.
Lloyd vs. Kennedy ct al-Reiercnce ordered 10
Hon John II. Barbour.
Knox vs. Observation-Disclosures died order reversed
aud Judgment al circuit affirmed
Gantry va Gilbert.-Order may be entered striking
out answer.
SIawson W.. Watkins OF al Motion TO dismiss pro-
ccedings denied. Attachment should issue against
defendant III default OF his appearance before referee.
Wallace VS.. Newman; Robe vs.. schmidt; Thayer VI.
Clark; New YORK Guaranty and Indemnity Company
Roberts lellamy VS.. DE Forest ct III Roberts VI.
Whlte ct al Blake ct al. Secor; Davis Brunncr
Belger vs.. O'ReDiy.-Ordsrs granted.
By Judge Speir
Hendricks Va. The sixth Avenue Railroad Com
pany.-Case and exceptions ordered on nle.
COMMON PLEAs-spEcIAL TERM.
BY Judge Van Hoesen.
Denyak vs.. Henuing,-Motion granted. Soc memo
randum.
HooIey VS.. Gieve.-Applcation granted.
Seeley VS.. New York National Exchange Bank-ln-
tcrlocutory Judgment ordcr settled.
NOLAN va CASPIAN; ia the matter Of Sperberg-
Approved
granted
BY Judge Larremore.
McSpcden VS.. McSpeden.-sce opinion.