페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

and 123 New York State Reporter lia Jones and by George E. Jones against the Y. Supp. 201; Barstow v. Hansen, 2 Hun, 334; Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. H. F. McDonald v. Davis, 12 Hun, 95; Holyoke F. Ives, for appellant. Don R. Almy, for respond-Adams, 59 N. Y. 233. The delay in this case ents.

was from the 4th day of February, 1903, the PER CURIAM. Judgments and orders re- date of the alleged settlement, until the 8th day versed, and new trial granted, costs to abide of December, 1903, the date upon which the the event, on the ground that,' by the decision order to show cause was granted. During the rendered herewith on the appeal from the or- last few days of this period of time the defend der denying the motion to allow supplemental ant allowed the plaintiffs' attorney to prepare answer to be served, the issue has been chan- for trial, subpæna bis

witnesses, employ a coatged.

sel, and' incur other expenses, without any in

timation or suggestion to him that the cases HOOKER, J. (dissenting.). These actions had been settled. He was not only lulled to were commenced by service of summons and sleep by the nonaction of defendant's attorney complaint on the defendant on or about the in respect to informing him of the alleged set15th day of April, 1902. That of Athalia tlement, but was affirmatively led to believe Jones was brought to recover damages for that the issues were alive, and would be tried personal injuries alleged to have been receiv. as soon as the business of the court would per ed by her while a passenger on one of the mit his case to be reached; for it appears tdefendant's cars, and that brought by George controverted in the affidavit that the attorné E. Jones to recover for the loss of the serve for the defendant answered "ready" on one ices of his wife, Athalia. The accident occur

or more occasions when the calendar was being red on the 12th day of March, 1902. On or made up. In Medbury v. Swan, 46 N. Y. 200, about the 4th day of February, 1903, the de- the delay to plead a discharge in bankrupte fendant settled the actions directly with the did not exceed 15 months, and yet the court plaintiffs upon the payment of $8 to the wife for that reason, in the exercise of its discre and $2 to the husband. The case appeared on tion, denied leave to present it as a defense by the so-called "reserve calendar", on the 30th way of supplemental answer. See note of this day of November, 1903, at which time it was

case in Barstow v. Hansen, 2 Hun, 236. The marked "ready for trial" without objection. A only circumstances the defendant claims to es few days thereafter the case again appeared ist by way of excuse or explanation of the on the ready calendar, and the defendant's laches is that it is the custom of the defent attorney and the attorney for the plaintiffs ant, when it settles cases directly with the pas both stated to the court that the case was ties, without the knowledge of their attorneys ready for trial. The first intimation the at- to compensate them for their liens when they torney for the plaintiffs had of the settle- appear for trial on the day calendar of this ment of the cases was about noon on the court. Such circumstances do not make out us second day before this application for leave to

The practice is rather, on the other serve supplemental answers was made. It ap-hand, to be criticised, as actually incumberin: pears from the affidavit read in opposition to the trial calendars of this court with cases the motion that plaintiffs' attorney had sub- which have been settled and are dead issues. panaed all of the witnesses for the trial of The discretion exercised at Special Term was the case, and held them at court for a period such that we do not feel at liberty to interfere of four or five days; that he had been put to The orders appealed from should be affirmed considerable expense in preparing the 'cases with costs. for trial, and had employed counsel to assist him; that counsel had been present ready to

HIRSCHBERG, P. J., concurs. proceed with the trial of these cases on the 8th and 9th days of December. The plaintiffs JONES, Respondent, V. NEW YORK & Q. contended upon the argument of the motion C. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap that leave to serve supplemental answers pellate Division, Second Department. Juls should be denied, upon the ground that the 1904.) Action by Julia Jones against the New defendant had been guilty of gross laches. York & Queens County Railway Compaay. The motions were denied, and defendant ap- No. opinion., Judgment and order unanimously peals to this court. The right to serve sup- affirmed, with costs. plemental answer is not a legal right, and rests with the sound discretion of the court. Haas

KABLE, Respondent, v. ROCHESTER GAS V. Colton, 12 Misc. Rep. 308, 34 N. Y. Supp. & ELECTRIC Co. Appellant. (Supreme 35. Although, under section 544 of the Code Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. of Civil Procedure, it seems to be manda- July 6, 1904.), Action by Sebastian Kable tory, it is within the discretion of the court against the Rochester Gas & Electric Company. to grant or refuse an application for leave to No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with serve supplemental pleadings. O'Brien v. Met. costs. St. R. Co., 27 App. Div. 1, 50 N. Y. Supp. 159. This discretion, like other discretions at Special Term, should not be interfered with, ex- KANE, Respondent, BROOKLYN cept we can clearly see that improper result HEIGHTS R. co., Appellant. (Supreme has been reached. Patterson v. Hare, 74 Hun, Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. 269, 26 N. Y. Supp. 626. Unexplained and un July 28, 1904.) Action by James Kane against excused laches have long been held to require the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. No a denial of motions of this character. Bank of opinion. Judgment and order unanimously alMetropolis v. Lissner, 6 App. Div. 378, 40 N. firmed, with costs.

excuse.

KELLY, Appellant, BROOKLYN LEVIN et al. v. MCLEAN et al. (Supreme HEIGHTS R.CO. . Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. June 29, 1904.) Action by 'Jacob Levin and an. July 28, 1904.) Action by James J. Kelly other against James H. McLean and another. igainst the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Com- No opinion. Motion denied, on payment of $10 pany. No opinion. Order setting aside ver costs of motion and $10 costs of term. lict and granting new trial affirmed, with costs.

In re LEVY et al. (Supreme Court, AppelIn re KING. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- late Division, Second Department. July 28, rision, Third Department. September 30, 1904.) In the matter of the judicial settle1904.) In the matter of the application of H. ment of the account of proceedings of Julia Prior King, as executor, etc., for a discovery Levy, and William Hyams, as executors, etc., against Eugene L. Ashley. No opinion. Mo- of Philip Levy, deceased. No. opinion. Deion denied.

cree of the Surrogate's Court of Kings county

(83 N. Y. Supp. 647), in so far as appealed from, KIPP, Respondent, v. BURHANS, Appel- affirmed, with costs. ant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by Wil

LEVY, Appellant, v. DISTRICT NO. 1 OF iam S. Kipp against Webster H. Burhans. INDEPENDENT ORDER BNAI BRITH, ReNo opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department. June 24, 1904.) Action by KOCH et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF MT. Anna Levy against district No. 1 of the IndeVERNON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel: pendent Order of Bnai Brith. L. Moschowitz, ate Division, Second Department September for appellant. W. Bernard, for respondent. No -9, 1904.) Action by Elise Koch (sometimes opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and

disbursements. known as Elizabeth Koch), Margaretha Koch, Dlisa Neis, and Lena Birney against the city of Mt. Vernon. No opinion. Judgment affirm- LEVY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES :d, with costs.

GRAND LODGE ORDER BRITH ABRA

HAM, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate KRONOLD, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW Division, First Department. June 24, 1904.) PORK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- Action by Anna evy against the United States ate Division, First Department. July 13, 1904.) Grand Lodge of Order of Brith Abraham. L. Action by Adolphs. Kronold against

the city Moschowitz, for appellant. A. D. Lind, for reof New York. T. Sutre, for appellant. T. spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Order af- $10 costs and disbursements. irmed, with costs.

LIEB v. MORGENSTEIN et al. (Supreme KUBE, Respondent, v. ATLANTIO TERRA Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. COTTA CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- July 28, 1904.) Action by Henry Lieb against bellate Division, Second Department. Septem- Abraham J. Morgenstein and Mary Morgenper 29, 1904.) 'Action by Karl Kube against stein. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal he Atlantic Terra Cotta Company. No opin- Court affirmed, with costs. on. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

LINK et al., Respondents, v. McCABE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

sion, Third Department. June 30, 1904.) ACKUBE, Respondent, v. ATLANTIC TERRA tion by Helmus F. Link and William H. Link, JOTTA CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- as executors, etc., against William J. McCabe jellate Division, Second Department. Septem- and Emma J. McCabe. No opinion. Judgment Jer 29, 1904.) Action by Karl Kube against unanimously affirmed, with costs. he Atlantic Terra Cotta Company. No opinon. Order denying motion for new trial unani. LUCIA, Respondent, v. ENRIGHT, Appelnously affirmed, with costs.

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec

ond Department. July 28, 1904.) Action by LA FEMINA P. ARSENE et al. (Supreme John Lucia against Maurice Enright. No opinCourt, Appellate Division, Second Department. ion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmJune 24, 1904.) Action by Gennaro La Feminaed, with costs. gainst Arsen Arsene and another. No opinion. Motion denied.

In re LYDDON. (Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.) LANE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK, N. H. In the matter of the application of George Lyd& H. R. '00., Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, don for a writ of habeas corpus. No opinion. Appellate Division, Second Department: June Order dismissing writ of habeas corpus affirmed. 14, 1904.) Action by Matthew Lane against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad MCCARTHY v. MEANEY et al. (Supreme Company and another.

Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. PER CURIAM. Motion to dismiss appeal July 6, 1904.) Action by William F. McCarthy granted, with $10 costs, on the authority of against John F. Meaney and others. No opinPopham y. Twenty-Third St. R. R. Co., 48 ion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 N. Y. Super. Ct. 229, affirmed 89 N. Y. 633. costs.

and 123 New York State Reporter MCCAULEY, Appellant, v. MACKLIN, Re-1 MARTINEZ, Respondent, Y. WARD, Appelspondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. July 28, 1904.) Action by First Department. July 13, 1904.) Action by William McCauley against William C. Macklin. Albert Martinez against Patrick Ward. L No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court Gove, for appellant. H. R. Corey, for respondaffirmed, with costs.

ent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed wit!

costs. Appeal from order dismissed, no orde: McDONALD, Respondent, V. NEW YORK & appearing in the record. P. TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

In re MATHOT. (Supreme Court, Appellate Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by Division, First Department. June 29, 1904 Peter McDonald against the New York & Penn- | In the matter of William L. Mathot. No opissylvania Telephone & Telegraph Company. No ion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

MAWSON, Appellant, v. WERMUTH. Re

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, MCGOWAN, Appellant, v. BARNUM, Re- Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Edward L. Mawson against William Wermuth First Department. June 24, 1904.) Action by No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with

costs. David J. McGowan against Curtis A. Barnum. C. L. Barber, for appellant. C. B. Pierce, for respondent. No opinion. Order modified, by de- MAWSON v. WERMUTH. (Supreme Court, ducting $10 from the recovery, and, as modified, Appellate Division, Third Department. Sept affirmed, without costs.

30, 1904.) Action by Edward L. Marsin

against William Wermuth. McGOWAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to appeal YORK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appel- granted, and the following question certified late Division, First Department. July 13, Was it competent and proper for the respond 1904.) Action by Bridget M. McGowan against ent to allege and prove upon the trial of this the city of New York. S. P. Cahill, for appel- proceeding, in defense thereof, that the jade lant. T. Farley, for respondent. No opinion. ment obtained by Martin Devoy against Judgment affirmed, with costs.

liam Wermuth was assigned to Ebenezer Wer

muth prior to the issuance by him of the eiesMCILVAINE STEINSON. (Supreme

tion under which the respondent's real pa Court,, Appellate Division, First Department. erty was sold; and had the county judge Juris June 24, 1904.) Action by Tompkins McIlvaine diction to try that question and determine the against George Steinson.

validity of the execution sale thereunder? PER CURIAM. Motion granted as to Hart; otherwise, denied.

MAYCUMBER, Appellant, v. BUTTS, Be

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, MCKENNA, Respondent, V, NEW YORK George Maycumber against Reuben Butts. No

Third Department. June 30, 1904.) _Action by ELEVATED RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. June 24, 1904.) Action by John McKenna against the New York Elevated Railway Com

In re MAYERS. (Supreme Court, Appel pany. A. G. Fox, for appellant. E. N. Felt, late Division, Second Department. July 2 for respondent. No opinion.

Judgment af- 1904.) In the matter of the application of firmed, with costs.

Henry J. Mayers, for admission to the bar. So

opinion. Application granted. In re McCANN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. June 30, 1904.) MEYER, Appellant, v. WEBB, Respondent In the matter of the petition of John McCann (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Da for the removal of Josiah H. Marshall as a partment. July 13, 1904.) Action by Arthr justice of the peace of the town of Horseheads, L. Meyer against W. Seward Webb. L. Ma N. Y. No opinion. Application granted. shall, for appellant. H. B. Anderson, for me

spondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with MARSH, Respondent, V. STANDARD OIL

$10 costs and disbursements. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

MILLER et al., Respondents, v. RODE. A July 28, 1904.) Action by Henry Marsh pellant. . (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisios, against the Standard Oil Company of New Second Department. July 28, 1904.) Action by York. No opinion. Judgment and order unan- Charles E. Miller and Robert H. Benary imously affirmed, with costs.

against Edward Rode, doing business ander

the firm name of Rode & Brand. No opinio In re MARTIN. In re GRANT. (Supreme costs.

Judgment of the Municipal Court afirmed, with Court, Appellate Division, First Department. June 24, 1904.) In the matter of James Martin, and in the matter of one Grant. No opin- MOORE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & Q. ion. Motion denied.

C. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap

V.

pellate Division, Second Department. July 28, MULQUEEN, Respondent, V. THOMPSON 1904.) Action by Theresa v. Moore against & DUNDY SHOWS, Appellant. (Supreme the New York & Queens County Railway Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Company.

July 28, 1904.) Action by Joseph P. Mulqueen PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm- against the Thompson & Dundy Shows. No ed, with costs.

opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court afJENKS, J., dissents.

firmed, with costs. MOORE v. REILLY et al. (Supreme Court, MURPHY, Respondent, V. PRUDENTIAL Appellate Division, Second Department. July INS. CO. OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Su28, 1904.), Action by Marion H. Moore against preme Court, Appellate Division, Second DeKate Reilly and others. No opinion. Judg-partment. July 28, 1904.) Action by Elizament affirmed, with costs.

beth Murphy, as administratrix, etc., against

the Prudential Insurance Company of Amer. MOORE, Respondent, v. RODGERS, Appel-ica. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec Court affirmed, with costs. ond Department. July 28, 1904.) Action by Joshua E. A. Moore against Thomas Rodgers.

MURRAY v. BREHANEY. (Supreme Court, No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Appellate Division, Third Department. Sep

tember 30, 1904.) Action by William Murray MORGAN et al., Respondents, V. NEW against John Brehaney. No opinion. Motion YORK BILL POSTING CO., Appellant. (Su- granted, with $10 costs. preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. July 28, 1904.) Action by John Mor- MURRAY, Respondent, v. WARNER, Apgan and others against the New York Bill pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Posting Company. No opinion. Judgment of Second Department. July 28, 1904.) Action the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. by Margaret Murray against Warren W. War

ner. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal In re MORLEY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Court affirmed, with costs. Division, Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.) In the matter of the application of Charles E. NAYLOR, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. Morley, town clerk, etc., for the removal of & W. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, ApJohn G. Bramley, a justice of the peace of the pellate Division, Fourth Department. July 6, town of Elbridge, Onondaga county, N. Y. No 1904.) Action by Lavina Naylor against the opinion. Application for the removal of said Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad John G. Bramley from the office of justice of Company. No opinion. Motion for leave to the peace of the town of Elbridge, Onondaga appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with county, granted.

$10 costs.

MORRIS, Appellant, v, DAYTON, Respond- NEWHALL, Respondent, v. YONKERS R. ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. June CO., . Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate 23, 1901.) Action by Cora Morris against Har- Division, Second Department. July 28, 1904.) old C. Dayton. From a judgment for defend-Action by Ethel S. Newhall, an infant, etc., ant, and from an order denying a new trial, against the Yonkers Railroad Company. No plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Wentworth, Low- opinion. Judgment and order unanimously afenstein & Stern, for appellant. Joseph E. Bul-firmed, with costs. len and Charles W. Dayton, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, P. J. The defects in the evi- NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO., Responddence of the defendant, as pointed out by this ent, v. CITY OF MT. VERNON, "'Appellant. court on the former appeals (84 N. Y. Supp. 392; (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 86 N. Y. Supp. 172), were sufficiently remedies Department. September 29, 1904.) Action by upon the trial now under review to make the the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railcase one for the jury; and, it having been fair-road Company against the city of Mt. Vernon. ly submitted, their verdict for the amount of No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. rent conceded to be due should not be again disturbed. Three trials have now been held, NEW UNION TELEPHONE CO. v. MARSH with the same result in each case, and in the et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, absence of clear errors of law the litigation Third Department. September 20, 1904.) ACbetween the parties should be encouraged no tion by the New Union Telephone Company further. The judgment and order should be af-against Julia M. Marsh and others. No opinfirmed, with costs. All concur.

ion. Memorandum modified, so as to read as

follows: Judgment reversed, referee discharMOWBRAY, Appellant, v. SHELTON, Re- ged, and new trial granted, without costs of the spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, appeal to either party, and the order entered First Department. June 24, 1904.) Action by thereon modified accordingly. William E. Mowbray against George R. Shelton, individually, etc., G. W. Carr, for appel- ODELL et al. v. BRETNEY et al. (Supreme lant. A. Jaretzki, for respondent. No opinion. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. Judgment modified by striking out the words June 29, 1904.) Action by Stephen C. Odell "on the merits,” and, as modified, affirmed, and another against Charles W. Bretney and without costs.

another. No opinion. Motion denied.

and 123 New York State Reporter O'REILLY et al., Respondents, V. KING_et PEOPLE, Respondent, V. FAULHABER, al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di- Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi. vision, Third Department. June 30, 1904.) sion, First Department. July 13, 1904.) ProAction by James B. O'Reilly and others against ceedings by the people of the state of New John King and others, receivers, etc. No opin York against Philip Faulhaber. M. Schaap, ion. Judgment and order unanimously af- for appellant. E. Sandford, for the People. firmed, with costs.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed. PALMER et al., Respondents, V. LARCHMONT HORSE RY. Co. et. al., Appellants. Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

PEOPLE V. GOLDEN et al. (Supreme (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second De September 20, 1904.) Proceedings by the peopartment. June 24, 1904.) Action by Bryant ple of the state of New

York against John S. Palmer and another, as administrators, etc., N. Golden and others. No opinion. Motion of Floyd T. James, deceased, against the Larchmont Horse Railway Company and another. granted, with $10 costs. No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HILL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second PALMER V. TERWILLIGER et al. (Su-Department. June 24, 1904.) Proceedings by preme Court, Appellate Division,

Third Depart- the people of the state of New York against ment. September 20, 1904.) Action by Caro- George W. Hill. No opinion. Judgment of the line Palmer against Alice Terwilliger and County Court of Kings county affirmed. others. No opinion. Motion denied.

PEOPLE v. LADEW. (Supreme Court, ApPATTAT V. PATTAT et al. (Supreme Court, ber 30, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of.

pellate Division, Third Department. Septem. Appellate Division, Fourth Department. July 6, 1904.) Action by Eugene Pattat against Ja- the state of New York against Joseph H. Lacob Pattat and others. No opinion. Motion to dew. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 amend and resettle decision and order of rever

costs and disbursements. sal herein denied, with $10 costs.

PEOPLE v. LUCIA. (Supreme Court, ApPEEBLES, Appellant, v. COOPER et al., pellate Division, First Department. Jude 2. Respondents.' (Supreme Court, Appellate Di: 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the state vision, Second Department. September 29, of New York against Ernest Lucia. No opin1904.) Action by Robert J. Peebles, as trustee ion. Motion granted. in bankruptcy for William Trist Bailey, a bankrupt, against Charles Cooper and Joseph H. PEOPLE V. MOORE. (Supreme Court, Ap De Bragga, as sheriff of Queens county. No pellate Division, Third Department. Septemopinion. Judgment unanimously afirmed, with ber 20, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of costs.

the state of New York against Loring Moore.

PER CURIAM. Decision amended, so as to PERKINS, Appellant, v. STANTON, Re- read as follows: Conviction, order, and judg. spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ment of the county court of Saratoga county Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by affirmed upon the facts, and reversed upon the Albertus D. Perkins against George Stanton, law, and a new trial ordered, and the clerk as president of the New York State_ Ginseng directed to enter judgment and remit certified Growers' Association. No opinion. Judgment copy thereof, with the return and decision of unaniinously affirmed, with costs.

this court, to such county court, pursuant to

sections 547 and 548 of the Code of Criminal PERKINS, Appellant, v. STANTON, Re- Procedure, and the order entered thereon spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, amended accordingly. Third Department. June 30, 1904.) Action by William T. Perkins against George Stanton, as PEOPLE v. president of the New York State Ginseng LOAN ASS'N, in re CASE. (Supreme Court,

REPUBLIC SAVINGS & Growers Association. No opinion. Judgment Appellate Division, Second Department. Juls unanimously affirmed, with costs.

28, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the PEOPLE, Respondent, V. ARMSTRONG, & Loan Association. In the matter of the

state of New York against the Republic Sarings Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, four claims of Franklin O. Case. No opinion, ings by the people of the state of New York Judgment, so far as appealed from, afirmed.

with costs. against Harvey S. Armstrong. L. E. Rogers, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, V. STEFANO, Ap

pellant, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, PEOPLE v. DONNELLY. (Supreme Court, First Department. June 24, 1904.) ProceedAppellate Division, First Department. June ings by the people of the state of New York 29, 1904.) Proceedings by the people of the against Richard Stefano. R. C. Taylor, for state

of New York against John Donnelly. No appellant. J. R. Heinzelman, for the People. opinion. Motion granted.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

« 이전계속 »