網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

and 118 New York State Reporter PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WARD, Appellant. , against Allan P. Thompson. A. Rosenthal, for (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De-appellant. H. Stiefel, for respondent. No opinpartment. November 24, 1903.) Proceeding by ion. Order affirmed. the people of the state of New York against Peter Ward. No opinion. Judgment of con- PEOPLE ex rel. DEEVY, Relator, . viction and orders affirmed.

GREENE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. NovemPEOPLE, Respondent, v. WHITE, Appel-ber 6, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on the lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, relation of Jefferson Deevy, against Francis V. Fourth Department. November 24, 1903.) Pro-Greene and others. A. I. Elkus, for relator. ceeding by the people of the state of New York T. Farley, for appellants. No opinion. Order against William J. White. No opinion. Judg-affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ment of conviction and order affirmed.

PEOPLE ex rel. DONOVAN, Respondent, PEOPLE ex rel. BARNES, Respondent, v.v. CANTOR et al., Appellants. (Supreme WOLCOTT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- Court, Appellate Division, First Department. pellate Division, Fourth Department. Novem- October 16, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, ber 17, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on on the relation of Bartholomew Donovan, the relation of Willard A. Barnes, against against Jacob A. Cantor, individually, etc., and Floyd D. Wolcott. No opinion. Order affirmed, others. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal with costs. See 60 N. Y. Supp. 862.

granted, with $10 costs. PEOPLE ex rel. BAXTER, Relator, v. PEOPLE ex rel. EDISON ELECTRIC ILGREENE, Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme Court LUMINATING CO. OF BROOKLYN V. Appellate Division, First Department. October FEITNER et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate 23, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on the re- Division, First Department. November 20, lation of William Baxter, against Francis V. 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on the relation Greene, as commissioner, etc. I. Wasservogel, of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of for relator. T. Farley, for respondent. No Brooklyn, against Thomas L. Feitner and othopinion. Writ dismissed, and proceedings af ers. No opinion. Motion granted for leave to firmed, with costs.

go to Court of Appeals. Question to be set

tled upon settlement of order. PEOPLE, ex rel. BROOKLYN UNION GAS CO., Appellant, v. FEITNER et al., Re-1 PEOPLE ex rel. HARDY, Respondent, y. spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- GREENE, Police Com'r, Appellant. (Supreme sion, Second Department. November 13, 1903.) | Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Proceeding by the people, on the relation of the November 25, 1903.) Proceeding by the peoBrooklyn Union Gas Company, against Thomas ple, on the relation of Samuel Hardy, against L. Feitner and others, constituting the board Francis V. Greene, as police commissioner. of taxes and assessments of the city of New No opinion. Order resettled and signed. York. No opinion. Motion to amend order of reversal granted.

PEOPLE ex rel. LEHMAIER, Appellant,

v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Respondent. PEOPLE ex rel. CALDWELL, Relator, v. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De EUSTIS, Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme Court, partment. November 6, 1903.) Proceeding by Appellate Division, First Department. Octo- the people, on the relation of James S. Lehber 23, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on the maier, against the Interurban Street Railway relation of Charles H. Caldwell, against John Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with E. Eustis, as commissioner, etc. T. Farley, for $10 costs. respondent. No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with costs.

PEOPLE ex rel. LORD v. FEITNER et al. PEOPLE ex rel. CAPRON, Respondent, v.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De CLARK et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court,

partment. November 13, 1903.) Proceeding by Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Octo

the people, on the relation of Elizabeth S. ber" 27, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on No

Lord, against Thomas L. Feitner and others.

No opinion. Application dismissed. the relation of Albert S. Capron, against Orson Clark and another.

PEOPLE ex rel. MADDEN, Relator, . PER CURIAM. Judgment and determina- PARTRIDGE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, tion reversed with costs and disbursements of Appellate Division, First Department. Novemthis appeal, and writ dismissed with $50 costs ber 6, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on the and disbursements.

relation of Joseph J. Madden, against John J. STOVER, J., not voting.

Partridge. B. F. Feiner, for relator. T. Far

ley, for respondent. No opinion. Writ disPEOPLE ex rel. COMMISSIONER OF missed, and proceedings affirmed, with costs PUBLIC CHARITIES, Repondent, v. THOMPSON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap-1 PEOPLE ex rel. MASTEN, Respondent, v. pellate Division, First Department. Novem- | MAXWELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apber 20, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on pellate Division, Second Department. Novemthe relation of the commissioner of public char-ber 13, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on ities, on complaint of Carrie E. Thompson, the relation of Minnie R. Masten, against Wil

liam H. Maxwell, as city superintendent of vember 25, 1903.) In the matter of the estate schools of the city of New York. Vo opinion. of Joseph Pfarr, deceased. Motion for resettlement granted, and order, PER CURIAM. Upon consideration of the as resettled, signed.

additional testimony taken in this matter, an PEOPLE ex rel. MORRIS v. PARTRIDGE. of the Surrogate's Court, and that order will

order will now be made reversing the decree (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- recite a finding of fact by this court to the partment. October 23, 1903.) Proceeding by effect that Louis Pfarr is the legitimate son of the people, on the relation of Thomas F. Morris, Joseph Pfarr. See Code Civ. Proc. $ 2586. against John N. Partridge, as commissioner, etc. T. Mcllvaine, for relator. T. Farley, for PFEIFER. Respondent. v. WILSON. Aprespondent. No opinion. Writ dismissed, and pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, proceedings atlirmed, with costs.

Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) AC

'tion by Christian Pfeifer against Albert WilPEOPLE ex rel. MURPHY, Respondent, v. son. MAXWELL. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap-1 PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with pellate Division, Second Department. Novem

costs. ber 13, 1903.) Proceeding by the people, on the relation of Kate M. Murphy, against William STOVER, J., not voting. H. Maxwell, as city superintendent of schools, etc. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal

PIANKO, Appellant, v. BINDSEIL et al., to the Court of Appeals granted questions corti. Respondents. (Supreme Court. Appellate Divi. to the Court of Appeals granted, questions certified, and order signed.

sion, First Department. November 6, 1903.)

Action by Mendel Pianko against Herman BindPEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & H. seil and others. No opinion. Motion granted, R. R. CO. v. MILLER. State Comptroller. so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De partment. December 1, 1903.) Proceeding by In re PIERCE. (Supreme Court, Appellate the people. upon the relation of the New York Division, Fourth Department. November 24, Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, | 1903.) In the matter of the application of Samagainst Nathan L. Miller, as comptroller of the uel C. Pierce for a writ of mandamus. No opinstate of New York. Nó opinion. Determina- | ion. Order affirmed, with costs. tion of the comptroller affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements.

PLENTY et al., Appellants, v. COBIN, Re

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PEOPLE ex rel. STEEVES v. LEONARD First Department. October 23, 1903.) Action et al., Com'rs. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | by Josephus Plenty and others against Israel sion, First Department. November 6, 1903.) J. Cobin. S. J. Cowen, for appellants. H. J. Certiorari by the people, on the relation of John Morris, for respondent. 'No opinion. Order af. F. Steeves, against William D. Leonard and firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. others, commissioners, to review a decision of the commissioners. Writ dismissed. Charles POLAND, Respondent, v. UNITED TRACS. Davidson, for relator. Robert C. Beatty, for TION CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appelrespondents.

late Division, Third Department. December 1, PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in 1903.) Action by Eliza Poland against the the opinion in People ex rel. Belmont v. Leon- United Traction Company. No opinion. Moard (herewith handed down) 84 N. Y. Supp. 341, tion granted. the writ should be dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements.

POLLACK, Respondent, v. RUTH, Appel

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PEOPLE ex rel. TORMEY V, FOLKS, First Department. November 13, 1903.) ACCom'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tion by David Pollack against Abraham Ruth. First Department. October 23, 1903.) Pro- No opinion. Motion de ceeding by the people, on the relation of Am- $10 costs, and appellant allowed, upon payment brose F. Tormey, against H. Folks, as com- of an additional $10 costs, to move for leave missioner, etc. No opinion. Motion granted, so to open default in the court below. far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.

POPKIN, Appellant, v. MILES, Respondent. PETTIT; Respondent, v. TITTEMORE,

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeAppellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

partment. November 13, 1903.) Action by BarThird Department. November 11, 1903.) AC

net Popkin against Henry Miles. No opinion. tion Frances Pett vainst James P. Titte

Judgment of the Municipal Court aflirmed, with more.

costs. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

POUGH KEEPSIE TRUST CO. V. LANE PARKER, P. J., and HOUGHTON, J., dis- Let al. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division. sept.

Second Department. April Term, 1903.) AC

tion by the Poughkeepsie Trust Company In re PFARR'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court, I against Charles E. Lane and others, constitutAppellate Division, Second Department. No- ing the board of review of assessments made by

ties.

and 118 New York State Reporter the assessor of the city of Poughkeepsie for! PER CURIAM. Substantially nothing but a the year 1902. No opinion. The court desires question of fact is involved in this case. The to see the counsel in this case.

claim of the defendant that he should have been

allowed to show a custom prevailing with POUGHKEEPSIE TRUST CO. V. LANE reference to the dealings had in the New York et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- Furniture Exchange is not available. He makes ond Department. October 22, 1903.) Action no claim, either in his answer or in his testiby the Poughkeepsie Trust Company against mony, that he did not purchase the identical Charles E. Lane and others, constituting the goods shown him, and that those identic board of review of assessments, etc. No opin- were not to be delivered to him, but other goods ion. Appeal withdrawn by consent of the par- of which the articles shown were samples.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. PRESCOTT, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF RANGER, Respondent, V. THALMANN et TICONDEROGA. Appellant. (Supreme Court. al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiAppellate Division. Third Department. Novem- vision, First Department. October 16, 1903.) ber 11, 1903.) Action by Edwin A. Prescott Action by Solomon Ranger against Ernst Thalagainst the village of Ticonderoga. No opinion. inann and others. No opinion. Motion granted. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

RANSWEILER, Respondent, v. WATSON

et al., Appellants._(Supreme Court, Appellate PRICE et al., Appellants, v. LOVELL, Re

Division, Second Department. November 13,

1903.) Áction by Henry Ransweiler, an infant, spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

etc., against James H. Watson and James H. sion, Fourth Department. November 17, 1903.)

Pittinger.
Action by Milbert F. Price and another against
Joseph Lovell. No opinion. Judgment and or-

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmder affirmed, with costs.

ed, with costs.

WOODWARD, J., dissents. In re PURBY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 17, REED & CARNRICK, Respondents, F. 1903.) In the matter of the charges against WHITE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Alonzo A. Purby, an attorney of the Supreme Appellate Division, Third Department. NoremCourt of the state of New York

ber 17, 1903.) Action by Reed & Carnrick PER CURIAM. Ordered that Henry P. against Fred White and others. No opinion. Pendrick, Esq., of Saratoga Springs, N. Y., Judgment modified, by inserting provision that be appointed referee to take testimony and re- plaintiffs first tender to defendants the sum of port to the court, with his opinion thereon, and $500 for a conveyance of said premises, and, that Horace E. McKnight, Esq., of Ballston in case said conveyance shall not be made, Spa, N. Y., be substituted as attorney in place plaintiffs shall have the relief provided by said of George R. Salisbury, Esq., to prosecute the judgment, and, as so modified, affirmed, withproceeding.

out costs to either party. If order is not agreed

upon, to be settled by HOUGHTON, J. QUAIL, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap

REICH V. DYER et al. (Supreme Court, pellate Division, Second Department. Novem- Appellate Division, First Department. November 20, 1903.) Action by John H. Quail against

ber 20, 1903.) Action by Elizabeth Reich the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with taxable costs, | ion. Motion granted. before argument.

REILLY V. FREEMAN et al. (Supreme QUINN. Respondent. v. CRUMLIN. Appel-Court, Appellate Division, First Department. lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, October 23, 1903.). Action by John Reilly, as Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) Ac-assignee, against Charles Q. Freeman and othtion by James Quinn against William Crumlin, ers. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 as president, etc. No opinion. Judgment af- | costs. firmed, with costs.

RETTAGLIATTA, Appellant, V. HAYIn re RANDALL (Supreme Court, Appel- ) WARD et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, late Division, First Department. October 16,

Appellate Division, First Department. October 1903.) In the matter of Frank E. Randall. 23. 1903.) Action by Anna P. Rettagliatta, as No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, administratrix, against Thomas J. Hayward with $10 costs.

and others. J. E. Judge, for appellant. Joseph

N. Tuttle, for respondents. No opinion. JudgRANDALL, Respondent, v. FINKENBERG, ment affirmed, with costs, upon the authority Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. of Gmaehle v. Rosenberg, 83 App. Div. 339, June 22, 1903.) Action by Frank M. Randall 82 App. Div. 366. against Adolph Finkenberg. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. | RIGAS, Respondent, v. LIVINGSTON et al., Mr. Blumenthal, for appellant. O. H. Fuller, Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, for respondent.

| First Department. October 16, 1903.) Action

inst

r and others. No

[ocr errors]

nust

by Peter Rigas against George Livingston, as I ROGERSON FRUIT & COLD STORAGE commissioner, etc., and others. No opinion, Mo- CO., Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. tion denied, with $10 costs.

R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel

late Division, Fourth Department. October 27, RIGAS, Respondent, v. LIVINGSTON et al.,

JVINGSTON et al. 1903.) Action by the Rogerson Fruit & Cold Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-sto

Divi: Storage Company against the New York Cension. First Department. November 20, 1903

r Railroad ( Action by Peter Rigas against George R. Liv- ' PER CURIAM. Order reversed, with $10 ingston and others. No opinion. Motion grant-costs and disbursements, and motion granted, ed for leave to go to Court of Appeals upon giy- j upon payment by the defendant of all costs, ing undertaking. Question to be settled upon except those upon this appeal, subsequent to settlement of order.

the service of the original answer, with leave to the plaintiff to discontinue the action without

costs. In case of such discontinuance, the RILEY, Respondent, V. TOWN OF CUBA, | plaintiff to recover costs as stated. Held that, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- | the laches being sufficiently excused and it apsion, Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) pearing that the plaintiff will not lose any right Action by Michael Riley against the town of existing at the time of the commencement of Cuba. No opinion. Judgment and order af- the action by the proposed amendment, it firmed, with costs.

be regarded as in furtherance of justice to per

mit the defendant to set up the terms of the ROBBINS, Respondent, v. BRIDGMAN, Ap contract under which the goods were shipped. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. NO

STOVER, J., not voting. vember 18, 1903.) Action by Marcus Robbins against Malcolm L. Bridgman. From a judg- ROSENBLUM. Appellant, v. LONG ISment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. | LAND R. CO.. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Charles H. Luscomb, for appellant. Maas & Appeilate Division, Second Department. NoGoldberg, for respondent.

vember 13, 1903.) Action by Jacob Rosenblum BLANCHARD, J. The only question which against the Long Island Railroad Company. No appears to have been seriously litigated in this opinion. Judgment and order unanimously afaction was whether or not the plaintiff's as-firmed, with costs. signor was able to secure a theatrical license, as contemplated by the agreement of August, ROSENSTOCK V. DESSAR et al. (Supreme 1902. This was a question of fact, which the Court, Appellate Division, First Department. trial justice resolved in favor of the plaintiff, October 23, 1903.) Action by Edgar H. Rosenand we think his determination is fully jus- stock. as ancillary executor. against Adolph tified by the evidence in the case. Judgment Dessar and others. No opinion. Motion denied. must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

ROTH, Appellant, V. ARNEMANN et al., ROBINSON V. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviCO. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division. First sion, First Department. October 23, 1903.) ACDepartment. November 13, 1903.) Action by

tion by Frederick Roth against Martin ArneWilliam Robinson against Metropolitan Street

mann and others. A. P. Wagener, for appelRailway Company. No opinion. Motion dis

lant. J. Steiner, for respondents. No opinion. missed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

ROTHSCHILD, Appellant, V. DREYFUS, ROCHE. Respondent, V. MATTHEWS et al., | Respondent. (Supreme Court. Appellate DiviAppellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- sion, First Department. November 6, 1903.) sion, Second Department. November 13, 1903.) Action by Victor H. Rothschild against Isaac Action by Margaret A. Roche against James | Dreyfus. B. Tuska, for appellant. J. C. GugMatthews and Gardiner D. Matthews. No genheimer, for respondent. No opinion. Order opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court af affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. firmed, with costs.

ROWLEY, Appellant, v. NELLIS et al., ReROCHESTER & EASTERN RAPID RY. spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 00., Respondent, v. WEILAND et al., Appel- Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) AClants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, tion by Caroline Rowley, as executrix, etc., Fourth Department. November 24, 1903.) AC against James B. Nellis and others. tion by the Rochester & Eastern Rapid Railway PER CURIAM. Order appealed from (84 N. Company against Joseph H. Weiland and an

Y. Supp. 841) reversed, with $10 costs and disother.

bursements, and motion granted. Held that. PER CURIAM. Order reversed with $10 | under the circumstances of this case, it w as not costs and disbursements, and motion for re- a proper exercise of its discretion for the court taxation granted, with $10 costs. The clerk is below to hold that it was necessary that the directed, upon such retaxation, to allow all the plaintiff, in the action to foreclose the mortrejected items in the bill presented, excepting gage, should have made all the heirs parties the $10 costs of motion for the appointment of thereto, and litigated the questions with refercommissioners. See Matter of Brooklyn Unionence to their liability for any deficiency arising Elevated Railroad Co., 176 N. Y. 213, 68 N. E. in the foreclosure action. 249.

STOVER, J., not voting.

and 118 New York State Reporter ROYAL BAKING POWDER CO., Respond-1 SCHAIBLE, Respondent, V. TETZLOFF, ent, v. HOAGLAND et al., Appellants. (Su- Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divipreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart- ' sion, Second Department. November 20, 1903.) ment. October 23, 1903.) Action by the Royal Action by Phæbe A. Schaible against Amelia Baking Powder Company against Raymond | Tetzloff. Hoagland and others. W. N, Dykman, for appellants. L. G. Reed, for respondent.

I PER CURIAM. Application for substitution No

of administrator granted, and order signed diopinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the

recting the amendment of the order of affirmopinion of the referee.

ance nunc pro tunc as of the date of argument. RUSSELL, Respondent, V. GARLOW, Ap

See Bergen v. Wyckoff, 1 Civ. Proc. R. i. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 11, 1903.) AC SCHAUB, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent. tion by Frances Russell against Simon Garlow. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with partment. November 11, 1903.) Action by_Barcosts.

bara Eyer Schaub, as executrix of Jacob

Schaub, deceased, against the state of New SALIS, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN

York. No opinion. Judgment unanimously afST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap

firmed, with costs. pellate Division, First Department. November 6, 1903.) Action by Emil Salis against the Met

SCHLITT, Respondent, v. UNION RY. 00. ropolitan Street Railway Company. H. Melville,

OF NEW YORK CITY, Appellant, et al. (Sufor appellant. H. A. Heydt, for respondent preme Court, Appellate Term. June 22, 1903.) No opinion. Indement and order affirmed with Action by Anna Schlitt against the Union Railcosts.

way Company of New York City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. A. Robinson (F. A. Gaynor and Bayard H. SAMMONS et al., Respondents, v. ITHACA | Ames, of counsel), for appellant. S. S. Koenig, ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- for respondent. pellate Division, Third Department. December 1, 1903.) Action by Hanorah Sammons, as ad-1

-I PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afirmministratrix, etc., and others, against the Ithaca, ed, with costs. Street Railway Company. No opinion. Mo 1 MacLEAN, J. (dissenting). A medical man, tion denied.

who said on his cross, “I don't know how many

cases I am interested in against the same comSAMMONS et al., Respondents, v, ITHACA pany," volunteered again and again to tell comST. RY. CO.. Appellant." (Supreme Court. Ap- plaints made to him by the plaintiff. It was pellate Division, Third Department. Novem- error to deny the motions, promptly made, to ber 11, 1903.) 'Action by Honorah Sammons,

strike out these too willingly given gratuities, as administratrix, etc., and others, against the and so let hearsay, not even asked for, go to Ithaca Street Railway Company. "No opinion. ! the jury accompanied with the consideration at: Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

years' practice. The same professional person.

having testified that the plaintiff was suffering SAVAGE, Appellant, v. BURNHAM et al.,

from some concussion of the brain, and he was

led by certain symptoms to believe that there Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

was evidence of concussion of the brain, was not sion, First_Department. October 16, 1903.)

suffered, upon cross-examination by the defendAction by Emma J. Savage, as administratrix,

ant, to answer questions tending to test the against Sigourney Burnham and others. No

accuracy of his diagnosis, and also to show opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

that that term might mean with him something

less serious than could be attributed to it. Fur SAVAGE, Appellant, v. BURNHAM et al.,

thermore, in summing up, counsel for the coRespondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

defendant Waite and counsel for the plaintiff sion, First_Department. November 6, 1903.)

made statements as of the law applicable to the Action by Emma J. Savage, as administratrix,

cause, imposing a liability not incurred by the against Sigourney Burnham and others. H. D.

defendant appellant. To each such statement Cohen, for appellant. L. Lowenstein, for re

exception was taken, but the learned trial jusspondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with

tice neither rebuked the untoward utterances in $10 costs and disbursements.

answer to the exceptions por corrected them in SAXTON, Appellant, v. NATIONAL CASH

his charge. In my opinion the judgment should

be reversed. REGISTER CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October 27, 1903.) Action by Frank J. Saxton, SCHLOTTERER, Respondent, v. BROOKas trustee, etc., against the National Cash Reg. LYN & N. Y. FERRY CO., Appellant. (Suister Company. No opinion. Motion to dismiss | preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Deappeal denied, with $10 costs and disburse- partment. November 13, 1903.) Action by ments. Held, that the time within which to Louisa Schlotterer, an infant, etc., against the appeal from the judgment, as modified by the Brooklyn & New York Ferry Company. No order of June 6, 1903, had not expired at the opinion. Reargument ordered for Monday, Notime of the service of the notice of appeal. vember 23, 1903.

ation 0

of 20

« 上一頁繼續 »