The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-01-08
THE COURTS.
More Judicial Decisions in
Appeal Cases.
SU1TORs' RESPONSIBILITIES.
Enforcing the Rights of Savings Bank
Deposltors.

The Superior Court. General Term, has affirmed the
Judgment entered in favor Of the city in the suit OF
Aonzo Carr VS.. Tho Mayor, &c. This action, which
fully reported in these coumns when tried below,
was brought to recover certificate Of indebted
OF the OF Morrisania which had been fraud
ulenty distracted from the desk OF the Town Treas
urer. 1t mad been prepared and signed under mis-
take a. to the quantity OF work which had been done
contract for grading l45th street, but before
II issued the mistake discovered and Its Issue
countermanded. II was, however, secretly taken by
OF the trustees and delivered TO Tho contractor
who subseq transferred it to the plaintiff 1t
held below that the certificate stolen and that
no title passed to the plaintiff, and this decision the
one OF q series amounting to several thousands Of
dollars Mr. James Il. Angel appeared for the plain
tin, and M. A. j. Requier, Assistant Counsel to the
Donnely VS. The Mayor Is the pioneer action
brought IN behalf OF nine clerks employed by Surro
gate Tucker, In 1862 under resolution authorizing
him 10 appoint such persons as temporary clerks and
apportionng S. 900 for the expense. The persons
ployed under this resolution woro continued IN
ploym during tue succeeding years. after the orig.
inal appropriation was exhausted, until claims
Common Pleas, General Torn, held yesterday, Judge
J. f. DAILY writing the opinion, that no authority
conferred TO employ the clerks beyond the time COW
cred by the appropriation. thus sustaining defendants
exceptions TO the verdict rendered for plaintiffs last
April
L.
against Josephine T. Smith, on the ground OF alleged
adultery, motion some time ago made In the
Superior Court, Special Term by tue vile, Tor the
payment OF alimony, which resisted the
ground that the defendant, who had received 500
from her husband, executed release from any other
payment OF alimony. motion was thereupon made
Tor order setting aside this release, which de-
MED, and from the order denying the motion on ap.
peal was taken TO the Superior Court General Term.
Judge Van Worst writing the opinion OF the Court
the appeal, affirms tho order.
In the case of Samuel II. Randall, who
tinlna mr. nrhn n afnrn IF Vnnn
tho City Chamberlain or to stand committed Tor oon-
tempt OF court until the order obeyed, the Gen
oral Term OF the Court of Common Pleas yesterday
rendered decision affirming the order II
charged against Mr.. Randall tnat, In violation OF
the withdrawal OF the funds from the hands Of the
Chamberlain, he went before another judge and, sup
pressing the fact OF the existence of such order,
he obtained another order tor the payment Of the
money, which he paid over to ono party to the ltga
alleged violation OF the rights OF another party
interested in the funds In the opinion OF the Gen.
eral Term confirming order the Court below the
Court criticses his professional conduct in the mat
tor.
MARSHAL TROUBLES AND TRIUMPH.
case OF considerable importance TO city marshals
and the mercantile community is that OF Phillips VS..
Meyer and Schneider, tried yesterday, before Judge
Shea and jury in the Marine Court. The plaintiff
alleged that year 1874 he one OF the mar
shals of the city of New York. and that the defend
ants, in December OF that year. action
against Conrad Miller and Herman Bruns in which
suit they obtained and issued to Phillips an attach
mont The Marshal proceeded to levy under the at
tachment and subsequently, sold property levied
upon. and realized from such sale sufficient to pay
the Judgment of Meyer and Schneider in their
suit against Miller and Bruins, which
amounted to the sum Of $10s IS. Suisse
Judgment was Recovered in that action ono FrederscS
Bruins claimed that the property levied upon under
the attachment belonged to him, and brought suit
4 In March In vuls
The plaintiff Phillips, claimed that when this demand
for the property was made by Frederick Bruins he
titled Meyer and Schneider and they verbally agreed
10 hold him harmless from any loss damage that
might arise from sale IF the property levied upon,
notwithstanding the claim OF Frederick Bruins. Act
ing upon this advice he retained the property and,
before stated satisfied Meyer and judgment
out of the proceeds realized from sale OF the
Frederick Bruins recovered a judgment against tho
Marshal for the sum of 1922 81 for the property
taken, and hence the present suit by the Marshal
against the attaching creditors on their verbal
promise OF indemnity. Tho defendants denied max
Ing tho promise OF indemnity, and claimed that
OF them only told the Marshal not to do anything be.
lore consulting their counsel, and that both the
partners any event could not DO held liable Tor the
action of one IN directing officer TO and retain
in no event could they be held liable for greater
amount than the amount realized from the sale oil the
Bros, who appeared for the plaintiff urged that
verbal promise OF indemnity was sufficient in law to
hold these defendants liable; that the promise OF
OF the copartners made In copartne rship matter
The presence OF the other coparner bound both, and
that Marshal Philips not restricted his recov-
cry this action TO tho amount realized by him on
the sale Of the property levied upon, but entitled
to recover the amount OF the judgment he was COM
PEELED to pay 10 Frederick Brans-to-wit 1922 81.
The jury found In favor OF the Marshal Tor the full
amount claimed
THE THIRD AVENUE BANK.
In Supreme Court, Circuit, before Judge Van
Brunt and jury there for trial yesterday the
suit Of Samuel IL. Hurd against Daniel D. T. Marshal
ub,ch tharn