Majority
p. 96John M. Canda and John P. Kane, Resp’ts, v. Thomas H. Robbins, App’lt. (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department, Filed December 9, 1889.)
Headnote
Attachment—Non-residence—Proof of.Proof that defendant is living with his wife in New Jersey; that lie is registered osa voter and voted there; that he stated his residence is in New Jersey and that he is assessed for personal property there, is sufficient to show that he is a non-resident.
Appeal from order denying motion to vacate a warrant of attachment.
The warrant was granted on the ground of non-residence •of defendant, the affidavit therefor alleging that defendant informed deponent that he resided at Keyport, N. J., and to mail letters to him there.
The motion to vacate was made on affidavits stating that defendant’s residence was at 178 Garfield street, in Brooklyn.
In answer to these plaintiff introduced affidavits showing that defendant resided on his brickyard premises in Keyport, with his wife; that he was registered as a voter, and voted there in November, 1888; that he was assessed for personal property there; that at No. 178 Garfield street, Brooklyn, deponent was informed that defendant did not live there, and that he paid no tax on personal property in Brooklyn the previous year.
Charles F. Brandt, for app’lt; J. Woolsey Shepard, for resp’t.
The fact of non-residence is fully established by the papers. The defendant owns a house with the furniture in Brooklyn. William A. Robbins, his son, resided in it The defendant is a brick maker, residing in Keyport, N. J.
The proof of this is made up by a variety of circumstances. He lives with his wife in a house upon the brickyard premises. He is proven to have stated that his place of residence was in New .Jersey. He is not assessed for personal property in Brooklyn. He is not registered as a voter there. He is registered as a voter in New Jersey, and voted there in November, 1888.
p. 97
He is assessed for personal taxes in New Jersey; lie lias Ms business letters sent to New Jersey. The point taken that the affidavit made by the voting clerk as to defendant’s voting in New Jersey is not authenticated by a certificate as required for record, is not controlling. There is proof that defendant’s name is on the poll list of the voters who voted at the November election, and the fact is not denied by defendant.
The order should be affiirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.