The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-26
DECISIONS.
sUpREMR coURT-cHAMBERs

with costs, ana $40 costs OF this motion.
Tobey vs.. Hogan.-Thc disposition Is sufficient the
undertaking approved and judgment ordered Tor tho
plaintin
Thomas vs. Thomas have gone over the testl-
mony and the papers and am prepared TO confirm the
report and grant tho Judgment OF divorce Before
doing SO, however, the plaintiff must comply with the
new law as TO MS own lnnocence, &c. 10 DO found IN
Jones vs. The Mayor. &c-Complaint dismissed
with costs, and $40 costs OF notion
stone vs. Gordon.-rhe pleadings are vacated aud
II on inspection II appears proper case the order
should DO amended by striking out the costs and tho
recital OF Mr.. McAdam's opposition.
Faber VS.. snaw : Notion to place cause on Special
Court Calendar tor June !. 1877.
Moses vs. Stamdlor.-The motion to vacale the order
OF arrest granted, with $40 costa upon deIe
filing stipulation not 70 bring any action In c0nse-
Quence OF such arrest
Matter OF Van Alstyne.-Motion granted and sale
Wood vs. oarie,on.-rEe order Of reference is va.
aud the complaint dismissed with COSTS and $40
Matter OF tue Security Life Insurance Company
Bsrnadno Busso is permitted 10 Intervene and DO
GaDel VS. GaDeL--Relerred back to take proof az to
the service VI the process herein upon the defendant
under the new rule and to report with the opinion Of
Brennan Vs. Fitzgerald, &c.-Report confirmed and
decree granted The question AZ to allowance Is re-
served until after the value has been fixed or sale Of
In The matter OF Durieo, &G--Uppn the additional
testimony now furnished and upon tho suggestion Of
tue committee that he has been requested by the
OF kin pay tho bill, the report Is confirmed and
order Tor payment granted.
Matter ol Mahoney. Report confirmed and order
granted The attorneys tor the petitioner entitled
TO tho thanks oi the Court for the labor which has
been saved oy tho manner IN which the papers have
been prepared and the case presented.
Hare Va. Bitos.--Tne proof Of the personal service
OF the summons and complaint upon the defendant
without the state Is entirely insufficient. Further, It
Is not authenticated required by law The applca-
ton Tor Judgment upon these papers must be denied
rules l. should rsclss rule a as we rs .ns Statute
and should contain the additional words or In case the
attachnsnI and judgment shall be vacated and set
Myers w. Maloney Tho order Is not IN accordance
with tho iacls, nor arc the papers uictenL The
Greer OF the bank served upon
Further, the order tor defendants examination
obtained before Tue return OF an execution unsatsfed
and without proof that he unjusty reused u apply
his property, &c. iuis may have been waved &C., but
the objection DO cured oy tho examination
entitled direct order On the papers, however, no
may have order Tor receiver II SO advised.
Thomas W, Beard and anotheE-l do not think this
upon Mr. Thaycr's affidavit and suggestion court
and Mr. Cowdrey's consent appended 10 his brief u Is
for reference and as both parties agree and
request separate motion need not be made, but
order may be entered referring 70 Charles H. Hdreth
TO hear and determine.
Percy vs. Parsons and Another-The plaintiff, In
defiance OF tho decision lately rendered by this Court
to tnc effect that his summons and ali subsequent pro-
ceedngs In these actions must be sol aside obtained
order from Mr.. Justice Pratt, sitting AT SPECIAL
Term OF Kings County, Tor writ OF inquiry. upon
which SucriHs seems 10 nave assessed
ages Ut 5000 IN each OF these suits The Clerk upon
being applied TO hestated 10 enter judgment under
such extraordinary circumstances, and this appica.
ton, as lar ~ can judge from the almost iiegbie
papers presented, Is Tor order directing the Ilerk
to his duty IN the premises rhis ought TO be
done for several reasons In the first place. the papers
which the Clerk was asked 70 e are not nc TO 90 upon
tho hles Of the Court they are iegbio and In every
respect disgracsul productions Then the paintin'a
actions have been adunged alter tuIi hearing be
nonexisent such being the legal effect Of the setting
asue OF the summons and all subsequent proceedings
Further there Us no authority to enter such Judgment
the plaintiff has obtained order Tor relief
demanded in his complaint IN tho Court whore the
venue ~ laid IL Is quite clear that tho order the
Special Term Of Kings County 10 an action r'ape IN
New York Is void and furnished authority for tho
action ofthe sherir'sJn jury.
BY Judge Donohue.
Bearup vs. Carrsher.-Grantcd
The New York Society Tor the Preventiun Of Cruelty
to Children W. Rlvers-There seems TO be an utter
failure OF proof " show that the infant relation vi
the respondent, and the custody must DO awarded 10
the reiator
SUPERIOR coURT--spEcrAL TERM
BY Judge Sanford
Cslel va Schalte by section 6o4 Of tho remedial
code am required 10 assume TIE truth oil each aega-
ton OF the complaint, Notwithstanding conflict vi
deuce | must, therefore, mold that Ihe defcn dani
wronguliy converted the property OF The plaintiff,
although no denies this tuat he bought tho
tobacco oil the plann and paid Tor by his
notes. and although no counter andav IL presented ON
tho part OF the piantl under section 0s5 am, how
over, AZ liberty aud am required ~ determine every
other allegation OF TACT arising upon the application
evidence that the defendant has assigned disposed
OF his property with intent to deraud his creditors.
Tho evidence conflicting and the burden OF proof is
upon tho plaintiff. th0rc Is pfcpondsranc1 II 10 In
favor OF tho decnuant. The motion Is, therefore,
granted, with $l0costs
Lord Ut al. vs. HarL-Motion granted, with $40
costs.
Whitney vs.. Manifestation granted, with $40
COSTS TO ab'de the event. aud 10 be taxed IN avor of
tie prevailing parry rs costs in tue cause.
Struppman va Muller OF Al--Notion denied, without
costs.
Durahdo ct aL VS.. duncan ct al.--Reierred TO Mau-
rice Leync TO take proof. Sc ana 10 report thereon.
Miller w. rne New YORK Cement Company 1T al -
Motion granted and INJUNCTION continued pendene iic
SlU COST of motion 10 abide event. aud 10 b. taxed
Gusts III the cause in favor OF prevailing party costs
be awarded him.
Thoma. Of al vs. scribner The affidavit OF defend.
ants physician, in my opinion, Just lies the appiica-
ton Tor an adjournment OF MS examination unl Sep
mbcr, and am accordingly unwilling require his
Attendance at an carly date
Snow VI. scott junction granted
O'koliy vs. Bower Motion denied, withou, costs.
Ncli q al " Wagner Motion denied, win $40
costs to pialntin TO apids The event
Grcen Va Lee. Motion granted, without costa 10
ether party.
Snuw vs. scout ct sL-unGertaklng approved.
Wanuci. vs. Gregory ct aL--Re lcrce's report con-
hr aud judgment OF foreclosure aud sale o'dcrud.
seward VI. kcssIci--kcmitaluf ncd Judg mem az
lrncd
rny'e VS.. vin,on Ordered Juda ilenl for palntiG.
freucu ", The Boston Msrinc Insurance Company. -
Undertaking III alta hmcnt approved
French vs. rn1 Boston Marine INSURANCE. Compuny.-
or1er discnarging attachment granted
f. Brown receiver.
Nelll vs. The American Popular Lilo insurance Com.
psny. order staying proceedings
Butler vs. Til, American Popular Lie Insurance Com
pany. Order staytug proceedings
George count Jolntes vs.. Jarrct ct al Order 10
die original answer, a.
RocNwnc ct al ". GtnncIiy ct al Rockville ct al.
VS. icGovcrn ct al --Rcmntiturs hI,d Judgments
affirmed.
Cohen rs. Plate Ct al --Molon granted.
Iuihlli VI. Masters --Or lcrcd On May calendar
Seuy vs sandcrs.-Ordcred that judgment be
marked Secured on appeal"
Ohrt OhrL 10 dct cd tho answer vi defendant
be struck oui frivolous, and that plalntin have
Jud gmont with costs