
    BENJAMIN LAWRENCE, et al., Respondents, v. CHARLES FOXWELL, Appellant.
    
      Undertaking on arrest—cannot be cancelled on motion on ground that complaint has been dismissed— Gode Ovo. Proa. § 600.
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Truax, J.
    
      Decided June 2, 1883.
    Appeal by defendant from order- denying defendant’s motion to cancel and discharge an undertaking given by defendant ón an order of arrest against him, and to release and discharge the sureties in the undertaking from any liability thereunder. The ground of the motion was that there had been entered a judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendant, upon the direction of the judge at trial term.
    The court at General Term, said: “Judge Ingbaham, who decided the motion below, was correct in holding, that section 600 of the Code does not provide for a proceeding like the one at bar, and such relief as is asked can only be granted under the provisions of that section.”
    
      W. T. B. Millikin, for appellants.
    
      Ellis S. Yates, for respondents.
   Opinion Per Curiam.

Order affirmed with $10 costs.  