페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

same

In re O'BRIEN. (Supreme Court, Appellate , failed to make out any valid and binding agreeDivision, Second Department. January 8, ment to extend the mortgage. The matters 1915.) In the matter of the application of shown by the testimony of appellant Irvin did James J. O'Brien for a peremptory writ of not rise above negotiations and offers never mandamus, etc., directed to Patrick A. Whit- accepted. On the

morning that Mr. ney, as Commissioner of Correction, etc. No Pracht, who acted for plaintiff, had told Mr. opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and Irvin that his proposal would not be accepted, disbursements.

the unsigned pencil memorandum on an en

velope was handed to plaintiff at the elevated O'CONNOR v. LEVINE. (Supreme Court, railroad station. Clearly this was only an ofAppellate Division, First Department. Feb

fer, a tentative proposal from one side only, ruary 26, 1915.) Action by Daniel P. O'Con

never accepted, as appears from the subsequent nor against Arthur J. Levine. No opinion. letters and interviews. The learned justice Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.

at Special Term, therefore, rightly held that

no defense or counterclaim had been made out, OLCH V. BERNSTEIN. (Supreme Court, and that plaintiff was entitled to a foreclosure Appellate Division, Second Department. Janu

judgment. ary 15, 1915.) Action by Celia Olch against Fannie Bernstein and others. No opinion. OUSSANI, Respondent, v. OUSSANI, Ap Judgment of the County Court of Queens pellant. (Supreme Court, ppellate Division, County affirmed, with costs.

Second Department. January 8, 1915.) Action

by Gladys Oussani against Joseph Oussani. OLMSTED, Appellant, v. F. W. WOOL- No opinion. Motion for stay granted on conWORTH CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, sent. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1134. Appellate Division, Second Department. January 8, 1915.) Action by Ella B. Olmsted OUSSANI, Respondent, v. OUSSANI, Appelagainst the F. W. Woolworth Company. No lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, opinion. Judgment and order unanimously af. Second Department. February 19, 1915.) ACfirmed, with costs.

tion by Gladys Oussani against Joseph Ous

sani. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 O'NEILL V. LEE. (Supreme Court, Appel

costs and disbursements. See, 'also, 151 N. Y. late Division, First Department. February 11,

Supp. 1134. 1915.) Action by John J. O'Neill against Ronald C. Lee. No opinion. Application de- OWEN, Respondent, v. EMPIRE ENGInied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, NEERING CORPORATION, Appellant. (Su151 N. Y. Supp. 1134.

preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De

partment. January 6, 1915.) Action by ArO'NEILL v. LEE. (Supreme Court, Appel- thur H. Owen against the Empire Engineering late Division, First Department. February 11, Corporation. 1915.) Action by John J. O'Neill against PER CURIAM. Order reversed, with $10 Ronald C. Lee. No opinion. Motion denied, costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 151 with $10 costs. Held, that the moving papers N. Y. Supp. 1134.

presented in support of the motion do not

state facts sufficient to authorize the granting ORR HAMBURG-AMERIKANISCHE

of the order for a new trial upon the ground PACKETFAHRT ACTIEN GESELL

of newly discovered evidence. SCHAFT (HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE). (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De: (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De;

OZUT v. PIETROWSKI & KONOP CO. partment. January 29, 1915.) Orton G. Orr against the Hamburg-Amerikan partment. January 29, 1915.) Action by Paul ische Packetfahrt Actien Gesellschaft (Ham-Ozut against the Pietrowski & Konop Company. burg-American Line). No opinion. Motion

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also,

costs. Order signed. Motion denied, with $10 150 N. Y. Supp. 268.

costs. Order filed. OSSINING NAT. BANK v. STERLING

PADDOCK, Respondent, V. JOHNSON, ApSMELTING CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Ap. Second Department. February 11, 1915.). Ac

pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, pellate Division, Second Department. January 8, 1915.) Action by the Ossining National tion by Warren S. Paddock against Andrew Bank against the Sterling Smelting Company

Johnson. No opinion. Order affirmed, with and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, $10 costs and disbursements. with costs.

PALMATEER v. RED HOOK LIGHT &

POWER CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate OSWALD V. BAGG et al. (Supreme Court, Division, Third Department. January 15, Appellate Division, Second Department. Jan. 1915.) Action by Lena Palmateer, as adminisuary 29, 1915.)

'Action by Charles Oswald tratrix, etc., of Delro Palmateer, deceased, against Fred R. Bagg and others.

against the Red Hook Light & Power ComPER CURIAM. Judgment of foreclosure pany and another. No opinion. Motion grantand sale affirmed, with costs. The evidence led. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1101.

V.

.

PARKER-SMITH, Appellant, V. PRINCE PEOPLE, Respondent, V. ANZELLOTTI, MFG. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, pellate Division, Second Department. Janu- Second Department. December 24, 1911.) Proary 22, 1915.) Action by Augustus Parker- ceeding by the People of the State of New York Smith against the Prince Manufacturing Com- against Joseph Anzellotti. No opinion. Motion pany.

granted. PER CURIAM. Without expressing an opinion as to plaintiff's right to recover under the PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ATLANTIC contract of January 3, 1911, or whether before FRUIT CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Apany suit had been begun against the Nassau pellate Division, Third Department. January Trust Company, or other banking institution, 16, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the State plaintiff's compensation was limited to $500, of New York against the Atlantic Fruit Comwe think, in view of the manner in which the pany. No opinion. Judgment unanimously afverdict was directed, that the judgment must firmed, with costs. be reversed. The court directed a verdict for $7,935.25, and then reduced it to $606, which dispositions were so united as to be a PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BALOFSKY, Ap. single act, and one which required consent of pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, both parties. Against the exception of plain- Second Department. February 5, 1915.) Protiff's counsel the verdict could not be thus ceeding by the People of the State of New York reduced by the court after it had been once against Jacob Balofsky. No opinion. Judgdirected. Plaintiff's notice of appeal seeks to

ment of conviction of the Court of Special Sesreview only the court's order or direction re- sions affirmed. ducing the verdict; but, as no separate order was entered, this reduction, apart from the PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BLACK, Appellant. direction of the verdict, cannot be separately (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second reviewed. We therefore restore the parties to Department. January 22, 1915.) Proceeding their original positions, by a reversal of the by the People of the State of New York against judgment, with a new trial; costs of this ap- Allen Black. peal to abide the event.

PER CURIAM. Order of the city magistrate,

and order and judgment of conviction of the PAVLOWA BALLET, Inc., v. ATWELL et County Court of Kings County, reversed, and al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First proceedings dismissed, upon the ground that no Department. January 29, 1915.) Action by legal abandonment of defendant's child apPavlowa Ballet, Incorporated, against Ben H. peared, or proof that such child was likely to Atwell and others. No opinion. Motion to dis- become a public charge. This disposition, howmiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless ap- ever, is without prejudice to any future propellant comply with terms stated in order. Or- ceedings under the statute, should the defendant der filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1135. stop providing for his child, and if it should

appear that the child was in danger of becom

ing a public charge. PAVLOWA BALLET, Inc., V. ATWELL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 26, 1915.) Action by

PEOPLE v. BROWN et al. (Supreme Court, Pavlowa Ballet, Incorporated, against Dan 8. Appellate Division, First Department. FebruAtwell. No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 ary 11, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the costs. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. State of New York against Harry Brown and 1135.

another. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellants comply with

terms stated in order. Order filed. PEASE & ELLIMAN, Respondents, v. TERMINAL WAREHOUSE CO., Appellant. (Su- PEOPLE, Respondent, v. COPETTA, Appelpreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart. lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Ser. ment. February 11, 1915.) Action by Pease ond Department. January 29, 1915.) Proceed& Elliman against the Terminal Warehouse ing by the People of the State of New York Company. C. H. Edwards, of New York City, against Frank Copetta. No opinion. Motion to for appellant. A. H. Holbrook, of New York dismiss appeal denied, on condition that deCity, for respondents. No opinion. Order af- fendant perfect his appeal, print the record, firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Or- place the case on the March calendar, and be der filed.

i ready for argument when reached; otherwise,

motion to dismiss appeal granted. PENFOLD et al., Respondents, v. LARKIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DUBELIER, ApFourth Department. March 3, 1915.) Action by pellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviDanford J. Penfold and another against Hubert sion, First Department. February 5, 1915.) Larkin, individually, etc. No opinion. Judg. Proceeding by the People of the State of New ment and order denying motion for new trial af. York against Charles Dubelier, impleaded. J. firmed, with costs. Appeal from order granting A. Segal, of New York City, for appellant. L. additional allowance of costs dismissed, because Fabricant, of New York City, for the People. the record does not include the order or the No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Orpapers upon which it was made.

der filed,

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FETTER, Appel PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PRICE, Appellant. lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De. ond Department. January 22, 1915.). Proceed-partment. February 5, 1915.) Proceeding by ing by the People of the State of New York the People of the State of New York against against Harry Fetter. No opinion. Motion John J. Price. S. R. Lash, of New York City, granted.

for appellant. S. L. Richter, of New York City,

for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmPEOPLE, Respondent, v. GILLESPIE, Ap. ed. Order filed. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 15, 1915.) Pro PEOPLE, Respondent, v. RAND, Appellant. ceeding by the People of the State of New York (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De. against Alma Gillespie. Leo R. Brilles, of

partment. March 3, 1915.) Proceeding by New York City, for appellant. R. S. Johnstone, the People of the State of New York against of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Nathaniel D. Rand. No opinion. Judgment of Order affirmed. Order filed.

conviction affirmed. PEOPLE, Respondent, V. J. ALBERT SON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate PEOPLE, Respondent, V. RHEINHARDT, Division, Second Department. January 15, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the State Second Department. December 24, 1914.) Proof New York against J. Albert & Son. No ceeding by the People of the State of New opinion. Judgment of conviction of the Court of York against Edward Rheinhardt. No opinion. Special Sessions affirmed on reargument. See, Motion to dismiss appeal denied, upon condition also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1102.

that defendant perfect his appeal, place the case

on the January calendar, 1915, and be ready PEOPLE, Respondents, v. KUBLIS, Appel- for argument when reached; otherwise, motion lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec- granted. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1136. ond Department. January 8, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York PEOPLE, Respondent, v. RHEINHARDT, against Andrew Kublis. No opinion. Judgment | Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions Second Department. January 22, 1915.) Proreversed, and new trial ordered, upon, the ceeding by the People of the State of New York ground that the evidence does not establish the against Edward Rheinhardt. No opinion. guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special doubt.

Sessions affirmed by default. See, also, 151 N.

Y. Supp. 1136. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LE ROSE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROCCO, Appellant. ond Department. January 29, 1915.), Proceed-(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De. ing by the People of the State of New York

partment. January 8, 1915.) Proceeding by against Nicodino Le Rose. No opinion. Mo- the People of the State of New York against tion to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that Joseph Rocco. No opinion. Judgment of condefendant perfect his appeal, place the case on viction of the County Court of Kings County the March calendar, and be ready for argu- affirmed. ment when reached; otherwise, motion granted. Motion for leave to be heard on original record denied.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROMA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second PEOPLE, Respondent, v: MARKUS, Appel- the People of the State of New York against

Department. January 25, 1915.) Proceeding by lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Charles Roma. No opinion. Motion to dismiss Fourth Department. March 3, 1915.) Proceed-appeal denied, on condition that defendant pering by the People of the State of New York fect his appeal, place the case on the March against Jacob Markus. No opinion. Appeal calendar, and 'be ready for argument when dismissed, unless appellant file and serve printed reached; otherwise, motion granted. Motion briefs by March 9th.

for leave to be heard on original record denied. PEOPLE v. MARSHALL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February PEOPLE, Respondent, V. SINCLAIR, Ap11, 1915.) Proceeding by the People or the pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, State of New York against Walter H. Marshall. First Department. February 5, 1915.) ProNo opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.ceeding by the People of the State of New York Order filed.

against Upton Sinclair. G. E. Roe, of New

York City, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, of New PEOPLE V. MILLER

York City, for the People. No opinion. Judg

et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. ment (of 86 Misc. Rep. 426, 149 N. Y. Supp.

54) affirmed. Order filed. February 11, 1915.) Proceeding by_the People of the State of New York against Joseph Miller and another. No opinion. Motion to dis PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant. miss appeal granted, unless appellants comply (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Dewith terms stated in order. Order filed. partment. December 24, 1914.) Proceeding

by the People of the State of New York against PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ZRAKE, Appellant. Whitmel H. Smith.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second DePER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction of partment. December 31, 1914.) Proceeding by the County Court of Kings County affirmed. the People of the State of New York against CARR, J., not voting.

William Zrake. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Sessions af

firmed. PEOPLE, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 29, 1915.) Proceeding PEOPLE ex rel. BOWERY BAY BUILDby the People of the State of New York against ING & IMPROVEMENT CO., Appellant, v. Gersham Smith. No opinion. Judgment af- PURDY et al., Tax Com'rs, Respondents. (Sufirmed, with costs.

preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De

partment. December 24, 1914.) Proceeding by PEOPLE v. STEEPLECHASE PARK CO. I the People of the State of New York, on the reet al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, lation of the Bowery Bay Building & ImproveSecond Department. February 5, 1915.) Pro- ment Company, against Lawson Purdy and othceeding by the People of the State of New York ers, Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments, against the Steeplechase Park Company and etc. No opinion. Motion for reargument (of others. No opinion. Motion granted. Settle 149 N. Y. Supp. 1103) denied, with $10 costs. order before the Presiding Justice on February 8, 1915, at 10 a. m. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp.

PEOPLE ex rel. BOYE v. WALDO, Police 157.

Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department. February 11, 1915.) Pro-

ceeding by the People of the State of New York, PEOPLE, Respondent, V. TALBOT, Appel- on the relation of Charles G. C. Boye, against lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner of Department. February 5, 1915.) Proceeding the City of New York. by the People of the State of New York against William Talbot. S. R. Lash, of New York City, and writ dismissed, with $50 costs and dis

PER CURIAM. Determination confirmed, for appellant. S. L. Richter, of New York City, bursements. for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

BURR, J., not voting.

PEOPLE ex rel. BROCK, Respondent, v. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. URTEL, Appellant. ANSCO CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth pellate Division, First Department. January Department. January 20, 1915.)

Proceeding 29, 1915.) by the People of the State of New York against State of New York, on the relation of Charles

Proceeding by the People of the Philip Urtel. No opinion. Appeal dismissed. Brock, against the Ansco Company. C. A. Held, the question of jurisdiction sought to be Brodek, of New York City, for appellant. B. D. raised is not properly presented by the record. Whedon, of New York City, for respondent,

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WHITLOCK, Ap- disbursements. Order filed. pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 29, 1915.) Pro

PEOPLE ex rel. BROMLEY v. CROPSEY. ceeding by the People of the State of New (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeYork against S. Benedict Whitlock.

partment. January 29, 1915.) Proceeding by PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- the People of the State of New York, on the firmed.

relation of Ernest C. Bromley, against James LAMBERT, J., dissents.

C. Cropsey, Commissioner. No opinion. Motion to dismiss writ granted, with $10 costs.

Order filed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLBRANDT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 22, 1915.) Pro- PEOPLE ex rel. BUCK, Respondent, v. WILceeding by the People of the State of New York LIAMS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appelagainst Selma Willbrandt. No opinion. Mo- late Division, Second Department. February tion denied, on condition that appellant per 11, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the fect the appeal, place the case on the March cal- State of New York, on the relation of John S. endar of 1915, and be ready for argument when Buck, against William Williams, as Commisreached; otherwise, motion granted.

sioner of Water Supply, Gas, and Electricity.

PER CURIAM. Order (of 148 N. Y. Supp. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLBRANDT, 1136) reversed, on reargument, without costs, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- in accord with the terms of the opinion per sion, Second Department. January 22, 1915.) | curiam in People ex rel. Finch v. Williams, Proceeding by the People of the State of New 151 N. Y. Supp. 271, decided January 8, 1915. York against William Willbrandt. No opinion. Settle order before the Presiding Justice. See, Motion denied, on condition that appellant per- also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1103. fect the appeal, place the case on the March calendar of 1915, and be ready for argument PEOPLE ex rel. BUCKLAND v. WALDO, when reached; otherwise, motion granted. (Supreme Court, 'Appellate Division, First De

151 N.Y.S.—72

partment. January 15, 1915.) Proceeding by 1 29, 1915.). Proceeding by the People of the the People of the State of New York, on the State of New York, on the relation of Joseph relation of Ernest F. Buckland, against Rhine- H. Graupe, against Erhardt Lauffer. lander Waldo, as Commissioner. No opinion. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, without Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. costs.

FOOTE and MERRELL, JJ., dissent. PEOPLE ex rel. CATALANO v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di PEOPLE ex rel. HEUMAN V. BINGHAM. vision, First Department. February 11, 1915.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeProceeding by the People of the State of New partment. January 29, 1915.) Proceeding by York, on the relation of Quirino A. Catalano, the People of the State of New York, on the against the Board of Education. No opinion: relation of John Heuman, against Theodore A. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 Bingham, as Commissioner. No opinion. Mocosts. Order filed.

tion to dismiss writ granted, without costs.

Order filed.
PEOPLE ex rel. COLLER V. MITCHEL,
Mayor. (Supreme Court, Appellate. Division,
First Department. January 29, 1915.) Pro-

PEOPLE ex rel. HOLSTEN, Appellant, v. ceeding by the People of the State of New WOODS, Respondent. (Supreme Court, ApYork, on the relation of Herman Coller, against pellate Division, First Department. February John P. Mitchel, as Mayor, etc.

No opinion. 11, 1915.)

Proceeding by the People of the Motion to dismiss writ granted, with $10 costs. State of New York, on the relation of Edward Order filed.

L. Holsten, against Arthur Woods, as Commissioner. A. J._Talley, of New York City,

for appellant. J. F. O'Brien, of New York City, PEOPLE ex rel. DUNN v. WOODS, Police for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Second Department. January 22, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Robert P. Dunn, against

PEOPLE ex rel. KENNEDY V. CALKINS. Arthur W. Woods, as Police Commissioner of (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dethe City of New York. No opinion. Deter-partment. January 15, 1915.) Proceeding by mination confirmed, and writ of certiorari dis- the People of the State of New York, upon the missed, with $50 costs and disbursements.

relation of T. Francis Kennedy, against James

$. Calkins. No opinion. Order affirmed, with PEOPLE ex rel. ELLIS, Respondent, V.

$10 costs and disbursements. See, also, 149 SMITH et al., Town Assessors, Appellants: N. Y. Supp. 1104. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 6, 1915.) Proceeding by PEOPLE ex rel. McCANN V. ROBINSON, the People of the State of New York, on the (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Derelation of Arnold H. Ellis, against E. Lyman partment. January 29, 1915.) Proceeding by Smith and others, as Assessors of the Town of the People of the State of New York, on the Willsboro, Essex County, N. Y. No opinion. relation of George F. McCann, against Herman Order affirmed, wih $10 costs and disbursements. Robinson, as Commissioner, etc. No opinion. See, also, 162 App. Div. 920, 146 N. Y. Supp. Motion to dismiss writ granted with $10 costs. 1107.

Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. GELLER, Appellant, v. PEOPLE ex rel. McQUADE v. WALDO, PoWALDO, Com'r, Respondent. (Supreme Court, lice Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appellate Division, First Department. Febru: First Department. January 29, 1915.) Proary 11, 1915.) Proceeding by the People of ceeding by the People of the State of New York, the State of New York, on the relation of Sam- on the relation of Harry McQuade, against uel Geller, against Rhinelander Waldo, as Com-Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner, missioner. E. J. Dryer, of New York City, for etc. No opinion. Motion to dismiss writ grantappellant. J. F. O'Brien, of New York City, for ed without costs. Order filed. respondent. No opinion. Order aflirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. MARA v. WALDO, Police PEOPLE ex rel. GLENS FALLS INS CO., Com'r, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Respondent, v. HOWE et al., Appellants. (Su- Second Department. February 5, 1915.) Propreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De- ceeding by the People of New York on the relapartment. March 3, 1915.) Proceeding by tion of John J. Mara, against Rhinelander the People of the State of New York, on the Waldo, as Police Commissioner, etc. No opinrelation of the Glens Falls Insurance Company,

ion. Motion granted. See, also, 150 N. Y. against Delbert S. Howe and another, as As Supp. 985; 151 N. Y. Supp. 1138. sessors of the City of Glens Falls. No opinion. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

PEOPLE ex rel. MARA v. WALDO, Police

Com'r. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PEOPLE ex rel. GRAUPE, Appellant, v. Second Department. February 11, 1915.) LAUFFER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, 'Ap- Proceeding by the People of the State of New pellate Division, Fourth Department. January |York, on the relation of John J. Mara, against

« 이전계속 »