Tast will and testament of Mary D. Peck, de-
ceased. No opinion. Decree of the Surrogate's
Court of Queens county affirmed, with costs.

PENDERGAST, Respondent, v. NEW YORK
CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
October 18, 1912.)
Pendergast, as administratrix, etc., against the
Action by Catharine A.
New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
Company.

1133

Appellate Division, First Department. Novem-
PEOPLE v. CAMPBELL. (Supreme Court,
No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.
ber 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the
State of New York against Patrick A. Campbell.

Second Department.
pellant.
PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CIRRIGIONE, Ap-
ceeding by the People of the State of New York
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
October 4, 1912.) Pro-
against Paul Cirrigione. No opinion. Motion

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm-granted. ed, with costs.

SPRING, J., not sitting.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BATTLEORA, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. ceeding by the People of the State of New York October 18, 1912.) Proagainst Genaro Battleora. No opinion. Motion denied, on condition that the appellant perfect his appeal, place the case on the next calendar of this court, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted.

PEOPLE v. BELLING. Appellate Division, First Department. (Supreme Court, ber 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the OctoState of New York against William H. Belling. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellant comply with terms stated in order. Örder filed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BERG, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) by the People of the State of New York against Proceeding Harry Berg.

PER CURIAM.

the Court of Special Sessions affirmed.
Judgment of conviction of
JENKS, P. J., dissents.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BERG, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 8, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Ida Berg. C. B. Harris, of New York City, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

ond Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding PEOPLE, Respondent, v. COCUZZO, Appelby the People of the State of New York against lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Seccondition that the appellant perfect her appeal Rose Cocuzzo. No opinion. Motion denied, on within 10 days, place the case at the foot of the present calendar, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DE JESU, Appel-
ond Department. October 18, 1912.)
lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-
against Philomeno De Jesu. No opinion. Judg-
ing by the People of the State of New York
ment of conviction by the Court of Special Ses-
Proceed-
sions affirmed by default.

ond Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceed-
PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DE VITO, Appel-
ing by the People of the State of New York
lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec-
denied, on condition that the appellant perfect
against Michael De Vito. No opinion. Motion
of this court, and be ready for argument wher
his appeal, place the case on the next calendar
reached; otherwise, motion granted.

18, 1912.)
PEOPLE v. DIORIO. (Supreme Court, Ap-
State of New York against George Diorio. No
pellate Division, First Department.
opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Or-
Proceeding by the People of the
October
der filed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ELEFANTO, Ap-
pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Second Department. November 1, 1912.) Pro-
against Giuseppe Elefanto.
ceeding by the People of the State of New York

the Court of Special Sessions reversed, and new
trial ordered, upon the ground that the defend-
PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction of
ant was an ignorant and illiterate man, unable
to speak the English language, and unaware at
the time that he was being tried for the offense
counsel. See, also, 149 App. Div. 958, 133 N.
charged against him, and was unrepresented by
Y. Supp. 1136.

lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department.
PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ELLISON, Appel-
by the People of the State of New York against
October 25, 1912.) Proceeding
James Ellison. G. G. Battle, of New York City,

for appellant. R. S. Johnstone, of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Order filed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EVERETT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against William Everett. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Westchester County affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FARANIA, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) Pro

ing by the People of the State of New York against James Kelsey. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KRESSIE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Henry Kressie. No opinion. Motion granted, on condition that the case be placed upon the next calendar of this court, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion denied.

ceeding by the People of the State of New York pellate Division, First Department. November PEOPLE v. LADIN. (Supreme Court, Apagainst Joseph Farania. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the Court of Special Ses-1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Sarah Ladin. No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed.

sions affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. F. E. ROSEBROOK CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 25, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against the F. E. Rosebrook Company. J. F. Farrell, for appellant. T. Farley, of New York City, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

INGRAHAM, P. J., and SCOTT, J., dissent.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GIORDANO, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Giovanni Giordano. No opinion. Motion granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GLUCKMAN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 11, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Rosie Gluckman. No opinion. Judgment of conviction by the Court of Special Sessions reversed, and new trial ordered, on the ground that defendant's guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HOFFMAN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Rose Hoffman. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings County affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LEMON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 4, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Jacob Lemon. No opinion. Motion denied, on condition that the appellant perfect his appeal, place the case on the next calendar of this court, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LEONARD, Appelond Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceedlant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Secing by the People of the State of New York against Timothy Leonard. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

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

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LIPSCHITZ, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. September 10, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Meyer Lipschitz. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings County, and orders, affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LOVE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 1, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Robert Love.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction of PEOPLE V. KATZENSTEIN. (Supreme the Court of Special Sessions reversed, and Court, Appellate Division, First Department. new trial ordered, on the ground that the eviOctober 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People dence of the complaining witness was not supof the State of New York against Simon Kat-ported by other competent evidence, as rezenstein. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Order filed. See, also, 70 Misc. Rep. 185, 128 N. Y. Supp. 473.

quired by subdivision 5 of section 282a of the Penal Code, as added by Laws 1906, c. 413, under which the defendant was prosecuted. See, also, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1133.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KELSEY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceed-lant.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MENKLEI. Appel(Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Proceeding by the People of the State of New | KINGS COUNTY JAIL et al. (Supreme
York, on the relation of Minnie Bougie, against
William H. McLaughlin, Warden of the City
Prison. No opinion. Order affirmed, without

W. Killeen, of Buffalo, for intervening re

spondents.

PER CURIAM. meaning of the words "highest and next highest Without interpreting the number of votes" in section 6 of article 2 of the state Constitution, or determining whether such number shall be ascertained by reference to the vote for Governor, or some other candidate, cast for all the candidates of any political body; or by taking the average of the votes in the absence of any evidence in this record that it will ever be necessary for the purposes referred to in said section to definitely ascertain the exact number of votes cast for any candidate on the National Progressive ticket, and in view of the serious consequences that may follow any attempt at this late date to regulate 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 thereto. We will not assume that the election officers are intending to make an improper use of the indorsing bar. The order should be reversed, and the motion denied, without costs.

PEOPLE ex rel. HOWEY v. WARDEN OF CITY PRISON. Division, Second Department. September 10, (Supreme Court, Appellate 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Robert Howey, against the Warden of the City Prison. opinion. Order (137 N. Y. Supp. 268) affirmed. No

PEOPLE ex rel. LEARY, Respondent, v. MORRIS & CUMMINGS CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Daniel J. Leary, against the Morris & Cummings Company. A. W. Bailey, of Brooklyn, for appellant. York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order H. A. Uterhart, of New affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. LOGAN v. HENDERSON. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department. People of the State of New York, on the relaNovember 1, 1912.) Proceeding by tion of James F. Logan, against James A. Henderson, as Superintendent, etc. A. J. Talley, of New York City, for relator. New York City, for respondent. No opinion. H. Crone, of Writ dismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. LOGAN, Appellant. WARDEN AND AGENT OF CITY PRISON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. Proceeding by the People of the State of New October 18, 1912.) York, on the relation of Mattie Logan, against the Warden and Agent of the City Prison. No opinion. Order affirmed by default.

PEOPLE ex rel. McDONALD v. CONNOR, Police Com'r. vision, Second Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State November 15, 137 N.Y.S.-72

1137

No

of New York, on the relation of John Mc-
opinion.
Commissioner of the City of Mt. Vernon.
Donald, against James D. Connor, as Police
costs.
Determination confirmed,

without

VAN CO., Appellant, v. GAYNOR, Mayor, Re First Department. November 1, 1912.) ProPEOPLE ex rel. McKINLEY STORAGE & spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ceeding by the People of the State of New York, Mayor, etc. M. Jacobs, of New York City, for on the relation of the McKinley Storage & Van Company, against William J. Gaynor, appellant. W. E. C. Mayer, of Brooklyn, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

Order filed.

KENYON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. October PEOPLE ex rel. MARTIN, Appellant, v. 2, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of John Appeals (from 136 N. Y. Supp. 525) granted, Martin, against Charles M. Kenyon. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of and questions for review certified. 134 N. Y. Supp. 1007. See, also,

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De-
PEOPLE ex rel. NADERO v. KOCHESKI.
partment.
relation of Yetta Nadero, against Michael Ko-
November 1, 1912.) Proceeding by
the People of the State of New York, on the
cheski. No opinion. Motion granted. Order

filed.

R. R. CO. v. WOODBURY et al. PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & H. September 27, 1912.) Proceeding by the PeoCourt, Appellate Division, Third Department. ple of the State of New York, on the relation (Supreme of the New York Central & Hudson River Railand others, together constituting the State road Company, against Edburt E. Woodbury Board of Tax Commissioners, and the City of also, 150 App. Div. 894, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1139. Buffalo. No opinion. Motion denied. See,

PEOPLE ex rel. RYAN, Respondent, v.
pellate Division, First Department.
O'CONNELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap
18, 1912.)
October

Proceeding by the People of the
State of New York, on the relation of John P.
Ryan, against Thomas O'Connell, Clerk, etc.
E. S. Griffing, of New York City, for respond-
S. Deutsch, of New York City, for appellant.
ent.
No opinion.
costs and disbursements, and motion denied.
Order reversed, with $10
Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. SCIARILLO, Appellant, v.
October 18, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of
HENNESSY et al., Respondents.
Courts, Appellate Division, First Department.
(Supreme
the State of New York, on the relation of
and others.
Michele Sciarillo, against Joseph P. Hennessy
J. R. McMullen, of New York