The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-25

Wilson; Atwood vs. bowman; Lowry va Ross; Jew
EFT vs. Cass; Kleiugeld Kieingeid; Wyckon W
| Martin; Shepard VS.. Reardon; Shepard vs. Nelson
Sheppard vs.. Bliss; schrenck vs.. Wins; Demzak Va
Ottenderfer: Tho Hanover National Bank VS.. Leacon
| In the matter Of William S. Howell; The Germans
Lite Insurance. Company VS.. swe,zer; Jockel vs.
va Engs; Ferris va PhiAps; Pell vs. Myers; Poll
AMMAN; Psli vs. Pomers; Peii vs. Fisks; Peil vs.
vs. Myers; pell va Philips; PsIl VS.. Myers and Pe
VS. Kidd.-Granted.
Agate Nichols.-Order signed
Goldman VS.. Grcig.-Motion granted.
Shields vs. ST. Claire Glass. Proceedings stayed.
Powers vs. Eilioi.-huss be reference in this case
Chamberlain VS. Sloan, and The Trenton Bank ing
Company vs.. Duncan.-hotion denied.
Peck vs. Peck.-Granted. Referred 70 J. n. Lcvy.
sshsrmerhorn vs. Lombardo-aranted Referred
Van Derzee va Close.-wbsre is tn" undertaking,
Hammond va Esrle.-Aotion granted. Costs to
Cooper va Lesge... and In the matter Of Maurice
Werner SEQ rule 81
Lnngbcin II. Rollwagon. denied without
costs and with leavu 70 renew.
Hammond va Earle.-Motion to vacate granted,
with $40 costs to plaintiff. to abide the event.
Hirsch Wallach.-Motion granted, defendant
spuIa.ing TO leave cause on short calendar at It's
n the matter Of John M. Ceballos ct aL-Referred
to William A. BOYD. Memorandum.
Van Brant We. Standardization denied, with leave
10 renow payment OF $40 costs
The Green Boy aud Lake =. Railway Company va
70 dsaan,nns w, oos;s
granted, and 70 serve answer granted soc memoran-
DUN.
COSTS Costs ofjudgmcni, 60. 70 abide event.
BY Judge Brady.
Richard vs. Acknowledgment.
In the matter OF L. A. Rilcy.-See memorandum.
Hull va Loe-Denied, with $40 costs 70 abide
Lppo Vs. PguOet. and Evans Hippslshemcr.-
Powar vs. Mon.ant; in the ms..or Of Bernhomor
and IN the matter OF Borowski-Granted
BY Judge Davis
Pell va Myera-Moton granted aud order vacated,
but 10 walvc further mouon the answer already
ton.
SUPREME oURr-cIRCUIT-PART /.
BY Judge Donohue
Icr-Moton Tor y now trial denied. Soc MONOGRAM
dunn.
SUPREME CouRr-sPEC1AL TERM.
BY Judge Lawrence.
Bates vs.. Spring gatc-Order granted.
Whipple Va. McRoberts and others.--I do not think
that DO said tina. the matters SGT forth IN the
OF the defendants Sullivan and Boyd, by wsy OF
counter claim, constitute counter claim ucder
ton Sol Of The Code. They do not arise out OF the
transaction which constitutes tho plaintiffs OF
action sm also Of the opinion thar The com plant
states cause oil action. there must ne judgment Tor
The plaintiff on The demurrer 70 Tho counter claim,
with costs 10 abide tho event
SUPERIOR couRr-sPEcIAL TERM.
by Judge Freedman.
eastman, &c. vs.. Henry ct ALT Is ordered that
the appeal In This action DO and the Ii
thereof is hereby signed and directed 10 be nled 10
tho Office oil the clerk OF this Court tho original
case on appeal 10 the Generai Term herein
COMMON PLEAs-CHAMBEns
by Judge j. II. DAILY.
In tho matter Of Schooler, &c-Application denied.
In the matter, &c, oi MungcE-Decroo sipned.
10 tue matter, &C, o. Nv, mnson..oroer 70 Mo order
u sceienoo nunc PIo '1u. - an'cu.
WIKI, VS. moses, n"ssn .H ~ mos's; S.cge. va
st W '"'S'e o'uef a'es' asn'eo' VIII
$iv coss1 49,. -
keisig VS. Caney ior Judgment granted.
Fescne. w .,0 o,aer vsca'oo
10, Is"s '" vo"ps W" , s..o" vav ~ '"o C"uc.
wisn 70 so'ecs 'ee .o''es 0onsons sn"u viz. 70 neo
Mncc'er W. m.o1 's -. WI nave 20 DO
oruetea 20 .ake Poo. :. 70 ,ne aIioeou contempt.
but the deiondsn! may w'.ndraw THIS apphcation and
renew y ame' !uvs''ns oso monv \, "aaum. M.
,.na~yo ar nniv no m sSe n" . rarsv nsn,"" ny
a.o ~. nss,sa 80 u,os.cn ocs w''.
vus r.ya1'Se " ~ 'S' ~ '~"" e""~Aoo '"
defendant m
rate uiils .. cos.s ~ a.s o1en aspossa Oh
IN ms action oy inc n ascs,on o. ~ \, 1871.
MIS- counter claim where NO reply served. must
sive nos.0o " spp. -. ~, ~" vou.r ano csetN
was "a 20 tns n ss an order
'or Juas"e"~ t'e0''o" 'i' " '"s "oo"'
By Judge sinnot.
snort Va Mnesler;-ho ", denled, without costa
vocanS Inc herein must be- S%nsraa .o
no costs
vau s4 70 a,"Sn.s''-"~'~" " va0"'0 s''soh-
m sncor vs a mv Manhattan co... ga
WI DO. gran, ,nsse ,S S1dsrs VIII, issue
h hin, .rsm in,c c",. h, .n une
y, Snes NM, n. rnserv"S NV o"' wv ""'0u"'
an, cos.s M W 20 ''' ~'"'' "''"-
w V,osswskv Va. Bailev.-I oaunot .pprovs of ,hs
W"osruS va Mecuira-r ..s M ob....,. N m.
I'm, The Of tIc Iov Sssms ;oc"nssc
cr.hls ~ thems"iv". viii siov an smsnnwsns ~
,enysn va Onal,ct-C.o.,s t,x.a m saa "a
KneSier VS. observation-disclosures viii he ononed ana
the allowed to pur in an answer within az
Sa % mon pavment of ina costs ana s,sh....mor,.
No nIreaS1 faxed and inser,sd m iudsmsns The nSS
mani however TO stand as nocurity IN cosrs ar not
naid n s,~ dnvs Inc mo,,on a. Ssn,.n win a. cost,
Emmens vs.. Berrenx-Mo,ion fos stav dcn,ed nm.
loss tine defendunt paws uaint,fr corts On nrmer an
peal. In which case II viii DO granted TINS without
10 application 10 al nppeaI ma poor
nerson 49,
Suttou va Wood-Order refused.