The New York herald., 1877-11-21
DECISIONS.
SUPREME ooURr-cHAMBERs.

magistrate. The Judge TOOK The papers.
DECISIONS
SUPREME ooURr-cHAMBERs.
BY Judge Lawrence.
In the matter OF Elsie; Littauer Tipping; First
National Bank vs.. Gill (No u; same VS.. Same no y;
Same VS. Same mo 81; kennedy vs.. Heydenrich; Dun
ham VA CHRISTOPHER; Greenwich Savings Bank Vs.
Youngs; Society for the Reform Of Juvenile Delin-
quenis VS. Kcignen; Budd VS.. Murray; Sheldon M Hat
chine Company; Barclay Va Shaw; Mcclure vs.. Wat,
sou; Tinge vs. Reilly; Page vs.. Thurber; ODonncll
Ksarny n,y vs. Martin B1adDroOF VS. Sage; Kearny vs.
Martin; Schaefor vs.. Sherman; Society for The Re-
form Of Juvenile Del'nqucnts vs. Haas; Lange vs.
Harrison VS. Loew Patterson ys. stratton; Kidney
VS.. Kidney; Dckie va McGown; Lowerre VS.. Larkln;
foppen nausen; SOM VS. Rsr.nser; kaltiass VS..
Boehm Won 'Weysky vs.. Won Weysky; Draper VS..
Bogers vs.. o'Hara; FITCH vs.. Rogers; Pearsall vs.
Rvcrse; Connor VS.. Finley; Bogert vs. McCoon;
Aees Va Filer-Granted.
Witty vs.. Witty.-Report confirmed and judgment
OF divorce granted to the plaintiff
stewart vs. Hovey; ,i anthony vs. vs. &McKil!op; Shape
Thompson vs. SckIes The papers must be served
Kunxeman VS. Elsbacx II prefer that counsel should
appear on the settlement Of this order
Brown va Fariey.-Expianation required In this
case
Henseng vs. Henseng.-M Tor counsel.
COar.-MOtlOn
Murray VS.. Putnam; Duker va Kuhn; Frank vs.
Peari.-Moton granted.
Hatton vs. CIa,rmont Savings Bank-what Is the
authority for TINS order?
Bussing VS.. safIord.-who s the person proposed
as receIverY
solomon VS.. Preston. Motion granted, and cause
sci down for November 23
jackson vs. Rely.-Moticn denied, with leave TO
renew.
Lang va Rona-Granted by default
Brakeman, Jr, vs. Wegod.-W here the afi.
davts read IN opposition to this motions
Hancock vs. Rand-An allowance of two and half
per cent granted to defendant
Hancock vs. Rand; Same vs. Same.-An allowance
OF nye per cont Is granted 20 essnaAn.; ,.ro
rmed and judgment oi divorce granted TO the plain
tlf tf1y g4r
Burt va Elsback.-Should not this 60 before Judge
Van Bruntf
In the matter Of Moore.-writ allowed
In the matter OF Maudcr.-rhe testimony in this
case does appear show necessity for making
the allowance which Is asked for
S.ncairo vs. Rutter. MOTION Tor reference is
granted and cause referred to Mr. Joseph 7. Bos-
worth.
Barry va. Foey.-Motion granted, a. stated In
Blrdsall VS. Wood three cascsl l-Leave to serve an
amended reply In each OF these Is granted on
payment OF the costs oil motion IN each case.
Houghton VS.. Austn.-Moton granted, ana case
placed Special Circuit calendar for November 23
Miles vs.. Niles Memorandum tor counsel.
In the matter OF Desrliy.-what authority is there
Keogh VS.. Grenve-The summons and complaint
referred 10 in the affidavit annexed not IN the
papers
In tho matter OF the application OF Department OF
Public Works -Explanato on desired.
Matter OF Waiker.-Tnerc should, think, be somc
other testimony before the Court on this application
than that OF the committee. Tho matter IL rcIerred
each 10 tho Same referee to take further proof sH
Smith vs.. WrlghL-The order will contain such
provision in addition to providing that the defendant
pay the costs OF the action aud costs 0i motion.
Marsh Wooey-I shall not direct an attach
to issue, but will order that the defendant ap
pear before the referee to be examined on the 22d
inst, twelve O'Clock noon, or that an attachment
ISSUE with leave however, to the defendant TO apply
to the Courl the TO have the examination
procee0 elsewhere II the defendants health will mot
permit him TO attend on that day.
Kelly Smaley.-Ths petition IL addressed to
OF the Justices OF this Court by name. Is It not
special proceeding whi ch should be continued boore
SAID justiceY Ii not counsel will refer me to the
thorty upon which he relies us emitting him to the
order.
Ager vs. AgeE Referred to John A. Goodlet to hear
and determine.
Hurd vs.. Green-rhe motion for struck jury In
this denied for the that the Importance
and ntricacy OF the such to require such
q fury, and also because am convinced by tho
general statements contained the aidavts OF the
defendant thai tar and impartial trial OF tho issues
tho DC had without u struck jury. Soc
Code, section 1,063. Ten dollars costs TO plaintiff.
Lebeicht vs. Iarbox.-There IS nothing IN these
whether any answer bus been put IN rne consent
to discontinue Is signed by The plaintiffs attorney
ana not by deIendanta
SUPERIOR CoURT-sPEcIAL TERM.
By Judge Spor
Menard OF al VS.. sIevons.-Ordcred in day calendar
for 22d OF November N hh
GroIman Va. Grolman. -Rcfercncc ordered.
0iiiccr Aufcranyer ct al.-find.ngs settled, and
judgment oi foreclosure and sae ordered.
Westcrhouse VS. Westray ct aL-Ihe prayer OF the
petitioner must be granted.
Martens VS. Martens-T plaintiif7s counsel Is re-
questcd 10 explain certain matters appearing Nm the
testimony before the decree lor divorce Is granted
Hyde vs. Mahou.-The defendant must have judg-
ment on the demurrer, with COSTS DO Inc words
I'VE undertake., &c, >, In the presumption OF law, Is
fhalt Inn nl.l HIM tpv pf
necessary TO mako tho contract several.
Foller vs. Lppe.-Ordcr sctting aside tho complaint
&c. t
In the matter OF the petition OF Briiton-Ordcr ap-
pointing Mr.. Edward Il. BurbccK guardian ad litem
Tor George WEIGH, an iniant
BY Judge SANFORD.
Raubitshek vs. Blauk.-Case sotted November 10,
1871 Let an engIosscd copy be prepared aud SUBJ
miLted 10 me- t@N
BY Judge Freedman.
Dow ct al. VS.. Darrah.-Extra allowance Of s., 600
granted. t
are rciuted There Is no necessity that decision
disnlissng the complaint on plaintiffs own proof
has been expressly decided In Bishop vs. The Empire
Transportation Company t37 N. Y. Superior Court H.
J. ana s., IN and cannot lnd that tho now Code
has changed the rule.
Hcwett W. Morris.-Casc settled.
Paul Bethel vs. Eiiza BctzcL-Motion denied.
Cary VS. Stevcns.-0rder settled.
COMMON PLEAS SPECIAL TERM.
BY Judge Larremoro
Frochlich vs. ScnappcrL 500 memorandum.
Gilman va Gilman; Gilman vs. Gilman; Rhoadcs,
&c, vs. Pe,tior; In The matter Of Tag; Fosarty vs..
Wick, Jr. Gordon vs.. Mapes s--Appca.ion granted
Resig vs.. Cofcy.-Motion gr intcd and judgment or
dered tor plaintiff
Grossevs hncr--0rder granted. ua
Reilly vs. Hodcs Motion granted, with $40 costs
to plaintiff to abide event
In tho matter OF Herr Decree ordered.
BY Judge Robinson.
Clark VS.. FcltonClcrk should tax costs In favor oi
Defendant Dut extra allowance refused Soc opinion.
MARINE CoURT-cHAMBERs.
BY Judge McAdam.
Johns vs. Howell; Grccnsward VS. Morriil.-Opin-
ions hed. II
Curry VS. Farley Tho item OF $50 Tor trial fec on
issue Of fact s properly allowed Tor every time the
ciusc is tried. A trial without verdict still u
trial The rejected item VIII therefore be allowed.
(Sec Howard, pr. 400; 3O ib, 80; ~ Abb pr. 440
! RODS. 654; how.
Helene vs. Fecnesty; Bayicy vs. Murphy.-Judg
ments f4
Frangneld vs.. Hart Duncy vs. Knapp; O'Ncil va
McIntyrc- Motions rrantcd.