페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

ti

Yast will and testament of Mary D. Peck, de PEOPLE y. CAMPBELL. (Supreme Court,
ceased. No opinion. Decree of the Surrogate's | Appellate Division, First Department. Novem-
Court of Queens county aftirmed, with costs. ber 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the

State of New York against Patrick A. Campbell.
PENDERGAST, Respondent, v. NEW YORK No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.
CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CIRRIGIONE, Ap-
October 18, 1912.) Action by Catharine a. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Pendergast, as administratrix, etc., against the Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Pro
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad ceeding by the People of the State of New York
Company.

against Paul Cirrigione. No opinion, Motion
PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm-granted.
ed, with costs.
SPRING, J., not sitting,

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. COCUZZO, Appel

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SecPEOPLE, Respondent, y. BATTLEORA, Ap- ond Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, by the People of the State of New York against Second Department. October 18, 1912.) Pro- Rose Cocuzzo. No opinion. Motion denied, on ceeding by the People of the State of New York condition that the appellant perfect her appeal against Genaro Battleora. No opinion. Motion within 10 days, place the case at the foot of the denied, on condition that the appellant perfect present calendar, and be ready for argument his appeal, place the case on the next calendar when reached; otherwise, motion granted. of this court, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DE JESU, Appel

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SecPEOPLE v. BELLING. (Supreme Court, ond Department. October 18, 1912.) ProceedAppellate Division, First Department. Octo- ing by the People of the State of New York ber 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the against Philomeno De Jesu. No opinion. JudgState of New York against William H. Belling, ment of conviction by the Court of Special SesNo opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, sions affirmed by default. unless appellant comply with terms stated in order, Order filed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DE VITO, Appel

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BERG, Appellant. ond Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceed(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De-ing by the People of the State of New York partment. September 10, 1912.) Proceeding against Michael De Vito. No opinion. Motion by the People of the State of New York against denied, on condition that the appellant perfect Harry Berg.

his appeal, place the case on the next calendar PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction of of this court, and be ready for argument when the Court of Special Sessions affirmed.

reached; otherwise, motion granted. JENKS, P. J., dissents.

PEOPLE v. DIORIO. (Supreme Court, Ap

pellate Division, First Department. October PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BERG, Appellant. 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- State of New York against George Diorio. No partment. November 8, 1912.) Proceeding by opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Orthe People of the State of New York against der filed. Ida Berg. C. B. Harris, of New York City, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, of New York City,

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ELEFANTO, Apfor the People. No opinion. Judgment affirm.

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ed. Order filed,

Second Department. November 1, 1912.) Pro

ceeding by the People of the State of New York PEOPLE v. BERNSTEIN. (Supreme Court, against Giuseppe Elefanto. Appellate Division, First Department. Novem PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction of ber 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the the Court of Special Sessions reversed, and new State of New York against Solomon Bernstein. trial ordered, upon the ground that the defendNo opinion. Motion granted, unless appellant ant was an ignorant and illiterate man, unable complies with terms stated in order. Order to speak the English language, and unaware at filed.

the time that he was being tried for the offense

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

I

charged against him, and was unrepresented by PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BLAU et al., Ap

counsel. See, also, 149 App. Div. 958, 133 N. pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Y. Supp. 1136. First Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ELLISON, Appelagainst Philip Blau and another. J. A. Leve, / lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First of New York City, for appellants. S. L. Rich- Department. October 25, 1912.) Proceeding ter, of New York City, for the People. No opin- by the People of the State of New York against ion. Order affirmed. Order filed.

James Ellison. G. G. Battle, of New York City,

Court

ate att

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

for appellant. R. S. Johnstone, of New York | ing by the People of the State of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Judgment against James Kelsey, No opinion. Motion and order affirmed. Order filed.

to dismiss appeal granted. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EVERETT, Appel PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KRESSIE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 1, 1912.) Proceed- ond Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York ing by the People of the State of New York against William Everett. No opinion. Judg- against Henry Kressie. No opinion. Motion ment of conviction of the County Court of granted, on condition that the case be placed Westchester County affirmed.

upon the next calendar of this court, and be

ready for argument when reached; otherwise, PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FARANIA, Appel-motion denied. lant. _(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York

PEOPLE v. LADIN. (Supreme Court, Apagainst Joseph Farania. No opinion. Judg

pellate Division, First Department. November ment of conviction of the Court of Special Ses- 1, 1912.), Proceeding by the People of the State sions affirmed.

of New York against Sarah Ladin. No opinion.

Motion granted. Order filed.
PEOPLE, Respondent, v. F. E. ROSE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LEMON, Appel-
BROOK CO., Appellant.” (Supreme Court, Ap- lant. _ (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec.
pellate Division, First Department. October | ond Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceed-
25, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the ing by the People of the State of New York
State of New York against the F. E. Rosebrook against Jacob Lemon. No opinion. Motion de-
Company. J. F. Farrell, for appellant. T. nied, on condition that the appellant perfect bis
Farley, of New York City, for the People. appeal, place the case on the next calendar of

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. Order this court, and be ready for argument when
filed,

reached; otherwise, motion granted. INGRAHAM, P. J., and SCOTT, J., dissent.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LEONARD, AppelPEOPLE, Respondent, v. GIORDANO, Ap- lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Secpellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate, Division, ing by the People of the State of New York Second Department. ceeding by the People of the State of New York against Timothy Leonard. No opinion. Motion against Giovanni Giordano. No opinion. Mo-to dismiss appeal granted. tion granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LEVINE, Appel.

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SecPEOPLE, Respondent, v. GLUCKMAN, Ap- ond Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceedpellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ing by the People of the State of New York Second Department. October 11, 1912.) Pro- against Harry Levine. No opinion. Motion ceeding by the People of the State of New York to dismiss appeal granted. against Rosie Gluckman. No opinion. Judgment of conviction by the Court of Special Ses PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LIPSCHITZ, Apsions reversed, and new trial ordered, on the pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ground that defendant's guilt is not established Second Department. September 10, 1912.) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proceeding by the People of the State of New

York against Meyer Lipschitz. No opinion. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HOFFMAN, Ap- Judgment of conviction of the County Court of pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Kings County, and orders, affirmed. Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LOVE, Appellant, against Rose Hoffman. No opinion. Judgment (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second of conviction of the County Court of Kings Department. November 1, 1912.). Proceeding County affirmed.

by the People of the State of New York

against Robert Love. PEOPLE KATZENSTEIN. (Suprenie the Court of Special Sessions reversed, and

PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction of Court, Appellate Division, First Department. new trial ordered, on the ground that the eviOctober 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the Peopledence of the complaining witness was not supof the State of New York against Simon Kat- ported by other competent evidence, as he zenstein. No opinion. Motion to dismiss ap- quired by subdivision 5 of section 282a of the peal granted. Order

filed. See, also, 70 Misc. Penal Code, as added by Laws 1906, c. 413, Rep. 185, 128 N. Y. Supp. 473.

under which the defendant was prosecuted.

See, also, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1133. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KELSEY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MENKLEI. Appelond Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceed-l lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Second Department. September 10, 1912.) PEOPLE v. ROGERS. (Supreme Court,
Proceeding by the People of the State of New Appellate Division, First Department. Octo:
York against August Menklei. No opinion. ber 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of
Judgment of conviction of the County Court the State of New York against Emery M.
of Westchester County affirmed.

Rogers. No opinion. Motion to dismiss ap

peal granted. Order filed. PEOPLE, Respondent, NEW YORK CENTADRINK CO., Appellant. (Supreme PEOPLE. Respondent, V. SCHOBER, ADCourt, Appellate Division, Second Department. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, September 10, 1912.). Proceeding, by the Peo- Second Department. October 18. 1912.) Pro. ple of the State of New York against the New ceeding by the People of the State of New York Centadrink Company. No opinion. York against Christian Schober. (Case No. Judgment of conviction of the Court of Spe- 1.) No opinion. Motion granted. cial Sessions affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SCHOBER, AppelPEOPLE, Respondent, v. O'BRIEN, Appel- lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, lant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 18, 1912.) Pro-
Second Department. September 10, 1912.) ceeding by the People of the State of New
Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Christian Schober. (Case No.
York against William J. O'Brien.

2.) No opinion. Motion granted.
PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction and
order of the County Court of Kings County

PEOPLE V. SIRAGUSA. (Supreme Court, affirmed.

Appellate Division, First Department. OctoCARR, J., dissents.

ber 18, 1912.) Proceeding, by the People of the State of New York against Giuseppe Sira

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal PEOPLE, Respondent, v. OLSEN, Appellant, gusa. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second granted. Order filed. Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant, against Harry Olsen. No opinion, Motion

et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec

Prodenied, on condition that the appellant perfect ond Department. November 15, 1912.) his appeal, place the case on the next calendar ceeding by the People of the State of New of this court, and be ready for argument when York against Frank Smith, impleaded with

others. No opinion, Judgment of conviction reached; otherwise motion granted.

of the Court of Special Sessions reversed, on PEOPLE v. O'REILLY. (Supreme Court,

the ground that the facts do not justify a Appellate Division, First Department. No

conviction on the information, vember 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People

PEOPLE v. WATSON. of the State of New York against Daniel

(Supreme Court, O'Reilly. No opinion. Motion granted, unless Appellate Division, First Department. Novem: appellant complies with terms stated in order. ber 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the Order filed.

State of New York against Thomas Watson.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PINSKER, Appel PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WERBLINSKY, lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec. | Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviond Department. November 15, 1912.). Pro- sion, Second Department. October 18, 1912.) ceeding by the People of the State of New Proceedings by the People of the State of York against William Pinsker. No opinion. New York against David Warblinsky. No Judgment of conviction of the Court of Spe- opinion. Motion denied, on condition that the cial Sessions affirmed.

appellant perfect his appeal, place the case

the next calendar of this court, and be PEOPLE, Respondent, V. RAVEN, Appel- ready for argument when reached; otherwise, lant. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, motion granted. Second Department.

[ocr errors]

on

November 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Barney Raven. No opinion,

PEOPLE ex rel. BENJAMINS, Appellant, Judgment of conviction of the County Court

v. THOMPSON, Respondent. (Supreme Court,

Octoof Kings County reversed, and new trial or: Appellate Division, First Department. dered, on the ground that the evidence fails ber 18, 1912.), Proceeding by the People of to establish that defendant committed the the State of New York, on the relation of crime of extortion.

Israel Benjamins, against Henry S. Thomp

J. Fischer, of New York City, for ap

pellant. W. E, C. Mayer, of Brooklyn, for rePEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROBERTS, Appel

No opinion. lant.

Order affirmed, with

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Second Department.

November 15, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Harry Roberts, alias Harry PEOPLE ex rel. BOUGIE, Appellant, V. Shanks. No opinion. Judgment of conviction MCLAUGHLIN, Warden of City Prison, 'Reand order of the County Court of Kings Coun- spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divity affirmed.

sion, Second DepartmentNovember 1, 1912.)

son,

[ocr errors]

!

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Proceeding by the People of the State of New KINGS COUNTY JAIL et al. (Supreme York, on the relation of Minnie Bougie, against Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. William H. McLaughlin, Warden of the City October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People Prison. No opinion. Order affirmed, without of the State of New York, on the relation of costs.

Emma V. Gerwitz, against the Warden, Depu

ty Warden, and Keeper of Kings County Jail, 1-2 state PEOPLE ex rel. BROWN, Appellant, v. and the Sheriff, etc. No opinion. Motion de S. HEILMAN & Co., et al., Respondents. pied, on condition that the appellant perfect (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First De- her appeal, place the case on the next calendar partment. October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by

of this court, and be ready for argument

a tbe a the People of the State of New York, on the when reached; otherwise, motion granted. relation of Emil Brown, against S. Heilman & Co. and others. B. Loewy, of New York City,

PEOPLE ex rel. GREEN, Respondent, P. for appellant. W. Klein, of New York City, JERVIS, Special Deputy Excise Com'r, "Aps for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed,

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order

Second Department. November 15, 1912.) filed.

Proceeding by the People of the State of New
York, on the relation of Shirley J. Green,

against George S. Jervis, as Special Deputy PEOPLE ex rel. BURGARD, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Excise for the Borough of

atrol 1 CONWAY et al., Respondents. (Supreme Queens. No opinion. Order affirmed, with Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. $10 costs and disbursements. October 2, 1912.) Proceeding by the People

site i of the State of New York, on the relation of Henry P. Burgard, against Thomas F. Conway,

PEOPLE ex rel. GUMAELIUS, Appellant, as Lieutenant Governor, and others. No opin: Y: WARDEN OF CITY PRISON, Respondent

PEOP ion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and dis- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De. bursements.

partment. November 1, 1912.) Proceeding

In or by the People of the State of New York, on

the relation of Chas. Gumaelius, against the PEOPLE ex rel. BURKE, Appellant, v. Mc- Warden of the City Prison. F. X. Carmody, LAUGHLIN, Warden of City Prison, Respond- of New York City, for appellant. L. S. Kafer, ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec. of New York City, for respondent. No opinond Department. September 10, 1912.)

Pro- ion. Order affirmed. Order filed. ceeding by the People of the State of New

PEO York, on the relation of Harry Burke, against William McLaughlin, as Warden of the City

PEOPLE ex rel. HALEY, Respondent, V. Prison, etc. No opinion. Order (77 Misc. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VILLAGE OF Rep. 13, 136 N. Y. Supp. 122) affirmed. WHITE PLAINS, Appellants, (Supreme

Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. PEOPLE ex rel. CONEY ISLAND JOCKEY October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People CLUB, Respondent, v. PURDY et al., Com’rs, of the State of New York, on the relation of Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- John Haley, against the Board of Trustees of

Tork sion, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) the Village of White Plains. No opinion. Mo

abort Proceeding by the People of the State of New tion to dismiss appeal granted on default, with York, on the relation of the Coney Island $10 costs. Jockey Club, against Lawson Purdy and others, as Commissioners, etc. No opinion. Motion denied, without costs, not as a matter of NESSY et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di

PEOPLE ex rel. HALLOCK et al. v. HENdiscretion, but for lack of power. See, also, I vision, Second Department.

November 1, 136 N. Y. Supp. 667.

1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State PEOPLE ex rel. DUHAMEL v. NICCHIA Hallock and 'others, as administrators, etc.

,

of New York, on the relation of Frances V. et al.

People ton Cram

Order

PE

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, against Joseph P. Hennessy and others. No Second Department. October 29, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New Court of Appeals (from 137 N. Y. Supp. 813)

opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the York, on the relation of James F. Duhamel

, granted, without costs, and question certified. against Joseph Nicchia and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, without costs. Reargument denied, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1136,

PEOPLE ex rel. HOTCHKISS et al. . COR.

WIN et al, (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi. PEOPLE ex rel. DUHAMEL V. NICCHIA sion, Second Department. October 29. 1912.) et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal from Special Term, Orange County. Second Department. October 31, 1912.) Pro- Proceeding by the People of the State of New ceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of William H. Hotchkiss York, on the relation of James F. Duhamel, and another, against John Corwin and others against Joseph Nicchia and others.

No opin- From an order regulating the use of voting maMotion for reargument (of 137 N. Y. chines, certain respondents appeal. Reversed, Supp. 1136) denied, without costs.

and motion denied. Robert P. Beyer. Deputy

Atty. Gen., for appellants. William M. ChadPEOPLE ex rel. GERWITZ v. WARDEN, bourne, of New York City. for relators respondDEPUTY WARDEN, AND KEEPER OF ents. Frank Keiper, of Rochester, and Henry

ion.

[ocr errors]

157 XIV $50 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

W. Killeen, of Buffalo, for intervening re of New York, on the relation of John Mcspondents.

Donald, against James D. Connor, as Police PER CURIAM. Without interpreting the Commissioner of the City of Mt. Vernon. No

Determination confirmed, without De meaning of the words “highest and next bighest | opinion.

number of votes" in section 6 of article 2 of costs.
the state Constitution, or determining whether
such number shall be ascertained by reference

PEOPLE ex rel. McKINLEY STORAGE & to the vote for Governor, or some other candi- VAN CO., Appellant, v. GAYNOR, Mayor, Re date, or by taking the average of the votes spondent.' (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, cast for all the candidates of any political body; First Department. November 1, 1912.) Proin the absence of any evidence in this record ceeding by the People of the State of New York, that it will ever be necessary for the purposes

on the relation of the McKinley Storage & Regis referred to in said section to definitely ascertain Van Company, against William J. Gaynor,

the exact number of votes cast for any candi- / Mayor, etc. M. Jacobs, of New York City, for view of the serious consequences that may fol- appellant.. W. E. C. Mayer, of Brooklyn, for

respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with low any attempt at this late date to regulate $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. the ordinary use of "voting machines," we do not think that the court should by its order control the action of election officers in respect KENYON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap

PEOPLE ex rel. MARTIN, Appellant, v. thereto. We will not assume that the election pellate Division, Fourth Department. October ts. officers are intending to make an improper use

2, 1912.) of the indorsing bar. The order should be re

Proceeding by the People of the

State of New York, on the relation of John versed, and the motion denied, without costs.

Martin, against Charles M. Kenyon. No opinPEOPLE ex rel. HOWEY v. WARDEN OF Appeals (from 136 N. Y. Supp. 525) granted,

ion. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of CITY PRISON. (Supreme Court, Appellate and questions for review certified. See, also, Division, Second Department. 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State 134 N. Y. Supp. 1007. of New York, on the relation of Robert Howey, against the Warden of the City Prison. No PEOPLE ex rel. NADERO V. KOCHESKI. opinion. Order (137 N. Y. Supp. 268) affirmed. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De

partment. November 1, 1912.) Proceeding by PEOPLE ex rel. LEARY, Respondent, y.

the People of the State of New York, on the MORRIS & CUMMINGS CO., Appellant. (Su- relation of Yetta Nadero, against Michael Ko

Order ET. BY preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. cheşki. No opinion, Motion granted.

ment. October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the filed.

People of the State of New York, on the reSeed lation of Daniel J. Leary, against the Morris &

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & A. Cummings Company. A. W. Bailey, of Brook- R. R. CO. v. WOODBURY et al. (Supreme

lyn, for appellant. H. A. Uterhart, of New Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. Baits York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order September 27, 1912.), Proceeding by the Peo

affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ple of the State of New York, on the relation Order filed.

of the New York Central & Hudson River Rail

road Company, against Edburt E. Woodbury PEOPLE ex rel, LOGAN v. HENDERSON. and others, together constituting the State och erst (Supreme Court Appellate Division, First De Board of Tax Commissioners, and the City of

No opinion. partment November 1, 1912.) Proceeding by Buffalo.

Motion denied. See, People of the State of New York, on the rela. also, 150 App. Div. 894, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1139 tion of James F. Logan, against James A. Hen. derson, as Superintendent, etc. A. J. Talley, of

PEOPLE ex rel. RYAN, Respondent, v. New York City, for relator. H. Crone,' of O'CONNELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court,' Ap New York City, for respondent. No opinion. pellate Division, First Department. October Writ dismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the

State of New York, on the relation of John P.

Ryan, against Thomas O'Connell, Clerk, etc. PEOPLE ex rel. LOGAN, Appellant, v.

S. Deutsch, of New York City, for appellant. WARDEN AND AGENT OF CITY PRISON, E, S. Griffing, of New York City, for respondRespondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi-ent:

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 sion, Second Department. October 18, 1912.) costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Proceeding by the People of the State of New Order filed, York, on the relation of Mattie Logan, against the Warden and Agent of the City Prison. No PEOPLE ex rel, SCIARILLO, Appellant, v. opinion. Order affirmed by default.

HENNESSY et al., Respondents. (Supreme

Courts, Appellate Division, First Department. PEOPLE ex rel. MCDONALD v. CONNOR, October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of Police Com'r. , (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- the State of New York, on the relation of vision, Second Department. November 15, Michele Sciarillo, against Joseph P. Hennessy 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the state and others. J. R. McMullen, of New York

137 N.Y.S.-72

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Court

[ocr errors]

ad guests

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

i for mig

Rochester a

« 이전계속 »