Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ADA

PER

and 100 New York State Reporter state the date of the larceny, although it was otherwise described with such a degree of circumstance as to make its identification seem complete. Since that case was decided, however, the appellate division of the supreme court, in this department, has passed upon a somewhat similar case (People v. Sloan, 39 App. Div. 265, 56 N. Y. Supp. 930), in which they expressly hold that the date of the commission of the crime was not material. In the case last cited the description of the offense read as follows: "Charged with petit larceny, in stealing one mink boa, valued at $18.75, the property of J. N. Adam & Co." It was held that this was a sufficient designation of the offense, even if the construction here contended for by relator is to be applied to the language of section 721. The court is, however, careful to point out that where the defense of previous conviction is asserted the defendant is not limited by the record, but may establish the fact that the two prosecutions are for the same offense by evidence outside the record; and the case of People v. Finn, 87 N. Y. 533, is cited as holding that a description of the offense by the very general term “misdemeanor of petty larceny" is sufficient. In the case of People v. Markell (Co. Ct.) 50 N. Y. Supp. 766, which was a proceeding similar to the one here under consideration, Judge Ross, of Onondaga county, held a certificate of convic tion sufficient which simply recited that the defendant was before the recorder of the city of Rome, “charged with petit larceny in said city on the 25th day of September, 1897.” Here was no de scription of the crime, except by date and place. The argument was made in that case, as here, that the designation was so vague as to make it difficult for defendant to prove what he had been convicted of, in case of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. This difficulty is, however, pronounced "imaginary” by the learned judge, and so it seems to me. No matter how vague the record, it is in the power of the defendant, so long as he does not contradict the record, to establish on a second prosecution, by evidence outside the record, precisely what he was convicted of before. The desig. nation of the offense in the case at bar is precisely the same as that held sufficient by the court of appeals in People v. Finn. The decision in the Sloan Case does not seem to me to require any more definite designation, and I shall therefore hold the certificate suficient. Application denied, and the prisoner ordered remanded.

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

ADAMS, Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION In re BALDWIN. (Supreme Court, AppelS. S. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Ap-late Division, Fourth Department. July 24, pellate Term, November 8, 1900.) Action by 1900.) In the matter of the estate of Henry George F. Adams against the Old Dominion Baldwin, deceased. No opinion. Motion to Steamship Company. From a judgment of the substitute Charles Stubbs as administrator of general term of the city court of New York estate of James Stubbs, deceased, granted. (65 N, Y. Supp. 1127) atfirming a judgment for defendant, and an order denying a new trial, BALDWIN'S BANK OF PENN YAN, Apthe plaintiff appeals. Afirmed. Hyland & pellant, v. DIXON et al., Respondents. (SuZabriskie, for opellant. Owen & Sturges, for preme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Derespondent.

partment. September 25, 1900.) Action by PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan against Edward costs,

S. Dixon and another. No opinion. Judg

ment affirmed, with costs. ALTMAYER et al., Respondents, 'y. MC

BALL, Appellant, v. WILLIAMS et al., ReKEON et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, l'irst Department. July spondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Divi17, 1900.) Action by Nathaniel Altmayer and Action by Lydia M. Ball against Sarah Wil

sion, Fourth Department. October 2, 1900.) another against Patrick J. McKeon and another. C. E. Thornall

, for appellants. E. liams and others. No opinion. Judgment and Blumenstiel,

order affirmed, with costs. for respondents. No opinion, Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse

BANK, Appellant, v. MARKOWITZ, Re. ments.

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department. November 9, 1900.) ACAJER et al., Respondents, v. FOLK et al., ) tion by Samuel Bank, by his guardian, against Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. Herman Markowitz. From an order granting Norember 9, 1900.) Action by Edward C. defendant's motion to set aside judgment in

Amer and another against John Folk and an favor of plaintiff and awarding a new trial (65 3 other. From a judgment and order of the gen- N. Y. Supp. 369), plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

eral term of the city court (65 N. Y. Supp. Joseph Wilkenfeld, for appellant. Max Alt1127) a firming a judgment for plaintiffs, de- mayer, for respondeut. fendants appeal. Attirmed. Hastings & Glea

O'BRIEN, J. For the reasons stated in the 3011, for appellants. Blumensteil & Hirsch, for opinion of the court below, the order appealed respondents.

from should be affirmed, with costs. All conPER CURIAM. The only question in this cur, except VAN BRUNT, P. J., and INcase was whether there had been an accord GRAHAM, J., who dissent. and satisfaction between the parties. This iszue was submitted to the jury by a charge BARNUM, Respondent, v. BARNUM, Apwhich correctly followed the opinion delivered pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, when this case was here on a former appeal. First Department. November 9, 1900.) ACAmer v. Folk, 28 Misc. Rep. 508, 59 N. Y. tion for divorce by Sarah A. Barnum against šupp. 532. The evidence was conflicting, and Rhilo F. Barnum. From a judgment awarding traply supported the judgment rendered against plaintiff a limited divorce, and directing debe defendants. The order denying the defend fendant to pay plaintiff $50 per month, deints' motion to set aside the verdict is not ap- fendant appeals. Modified. William P. Burr, Dealable to this court. Judgment afirmed, for appellant. John C. Coleman, for respond

ent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment should be ARNOLD, Town Supervisor,

FORD. modified by reducing the amount of alimony to Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De- $20 a month, and, as so modified, it should be artment. September 11, 1900.) Action by J. a thirmed, without costs. loward Arnold, as supervisor of the town of lifton Park, against William T. Ford. No BATTINI, Appellant, v. MCNAB, Respondpinion. Motion denied.

ent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department. September 18, 1900.) ACASTOR, Appellant, r. MOSS, Respondent. tion by Paul Battini against William J. McNab. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De- No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, artment. July 17, 1900.) Action by William V. Astor against Theo Moss. J. S. Mont BAUER, Appellant, v. EIRICH et al., Reomery, for appellant. M. Coben, for respond- spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi. at. No opinion. Appeal dismissed.

sion, Second Department. October 12, 1900.)

vith costs.

BI

and 100 New York State Reporter Action by John Bauer against Otto Eirich and BELL V. VALENTE. (Supreme Court A another. Judgment of the municipal court af-pellate Term. November 7, 1900.) Action to firmed by default, with costs.

Harry W. Bell against Gabrielle l'aleate

From a judgment of the general term (6.5 BEARD, Respondent, v. BEARD et al., Ap- Y. Supp. 378) affirming judgment for plaitë. pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, defendant appeals. Attirmed. Second Department. October 12, 1900.) ACtion by Emma C. Beard against William Beard firmed, with costs.

PER CURIAM, Judgment and order eland others. Judgment of the municipal court affirmed on argument, with costs.

BEREUTER, Respondent, F. MANHATBEAVER RIVER LUMBER CO., Respond- Appellate Division, First Department. Jus

TAN R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Cocrt, ent, v. ST. REGIS LEATHER CO. et al., 17, 1900.) Action by Caroline A. Bereze Appellants. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Divi- individually, etc., against the Manhattan Rasi sion, Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.) AC- road Company." W. H. Godden, for appelo tion by the Beaver River Lumber Company lant. W. G. Peckham, for respoudent. against the St. Regis Leather Company and Frank A. Cutting. No opinion. Judgment af- ducing the amount awarded for fee damare

PER CURIAM. Judgment modified by me firmed, with costs.

to $1,000, and by reducing the amount & BEAVER RIVER LUMBER CO. V. ST. | lowed for rental damage to $200 per year, thos REGIS LEATHER CO. (Supreme Court, reducing the judgment as entered to $2.911.31. Appellate Division, Fourth Department. Sep- and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costi tember 18, 1900.) Action by the Beaver River Lumber Company against the St. Regis Leath

BERKOWITZ, Respondent, F. CONGREer Company. No opinion. Motion for leave to GATION STROPKOWER CHEBRA JOappeal to the court of appeals denied, with $10 lant. (City Court of New York, General Term

SEPH CLAIM ANSHEI SEPARD, AJ costs.

October 29, 1900.) Action by Morris Bir

kowitz against the Congregation Stropkom BECKER, Respondent, v. WEIDENFELD Chebra Joseph Claim Anshei Separd to me et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate cover the value of certain alterations and me Division, Second Department. October 5, pairs to a building. From a judgment :3 1900.) Action by Peter W. Becker against favor of the plaintiff and an order densing : Camille Weidenfeld, individually, and Thomas new trial, defendant appeals. Afirmed. Man W. Lawson and Camille Weidenfeld, compos- Brown, for appellant. Paul Hellinger, ** ing the firm of Lawson, Weidenfeld & Co. respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed on argument, CONLAN, J. The action was to recoTET with costs.

the value of certain alterations and repas

to a building. Certain things which were ! BECKWITH, Respondent, v. CHICAGO

be done under the original contract went AGRICULTURAL IRON WORKS, Appel claimed by the plaintiff that under a still for

varied by a subsequent contract, and it lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, ther agreement there were certain estres First Department. July 17, 1900.). Action by called for, which were required to be de Dean A. Beckwith against the Chicago Agri- in compliance with certain rules and repun cultural Iron Works. W. Sutphen, for, appel- tions fixed by law. The defendant pleads : lant. J. H. Hildreth, for respondent. No opin- performance and alleges a coupterclaim. T ion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

evidence is conflicting upon the question or R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appel- case was presented to them under all of this BEECHER, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND extra work and upon the question of perfum

In the charge to the jury the white late Division, Second Department. July 17, contracts and on all of the evidence, and 1900.) Action by Anua M. Beecher as execu- claims of the respective parties were trix," etc., against the Long Island Railroad explained. That the charge was empresa Company No opinion. Motion for reargu- satisfactory to the parties is evidenced by the ment denied.

fact that no exception broad enough to me

any portion of the same was taket, and a BEECHER, Respondent, LONG IS-reached to the form of language empod i LAND R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, certain requests made by the defendant. Ipin Appellate Division, Second Department. July an examination of the record we do not fo

[ocr errors]

V.

! 23, 1900.) Action by Anna M. Beecher, as any errors which call for an interference on executrix, etc., against the Long Island Rail- the result reached by the jury, and the jet road Company. No opinion. Motion for leave ment and order appealed from should be s to appeal to the court of appeals denied. firmed, with costs.

FITZSIMONS, C. J., and HASCALL, .. BEHRENBURG, Respondent, V. FUNK, concur. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. July 23, 1900.) AC BIEVING, Respondent, v. NASSAU ELEC tion' by Bernhardt Behrenburg against Jacob TRIC R. co., Appellant. (Supreme Couverte Funk. No opinion. Judgment of the munic-Appellate Division, Second Department, ipal court affirmed, with costs.

tober 5, 1900.) Action by Frederick Biercing

JOLER

hylla

V.

against the Nassau Electric Railroad Com BRENNAN, Appellant, v. BRENNAN, Repany. No opinion. Judgment and order spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diviunanimously affirmed, with costs.

sion, Fourth Department. October 10, 1900.)

Action by James Brennan against Cora BrenIn re BIRD. (Supreme Court, Appellate nan. No opinion. Judgment afħrmed, with Division, First Department. July 17, 1900.) costs. In the matter of Mary E. Bird, deceased. No opinion. Motion denied.

BRINCKERHOFF et al. y. FARIAS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second In re BLAKE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Department. October 5, 1900.) Action by Division, Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.) Edwin R. Brinckerhoff and another, as execuIn the matter of petition of Catherine Blake tors and trustees, etc., against Marie C. Farias for the repayment to ber from the estate of land another, impleaded with others. No opinAnthony Blake, deceased, of moneys paid out ion. Motion for reargument denied. See 65 by her for her support.

N. Y. Supp. 358. PER CURIAM. Decree of surrogate's court affirmed, without costs to either party. BROWN, Respondent, V. BROOKLYN Held, that under the will of Anthony Blake, | HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme deceased, the petitioner is entitled to receive Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. during her natural life the income from the October 12, 1900.) Action by Loretta Brown, trust fund of $4,000 set apart for her sup an infant, etc., against the Brooklyn Heights port, and such part of such principal sum as Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment may be needful therefor, considering all the and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. circumstances and without reference to what income she may receive from her individual BROWN, Respondent, METROPOLproperty or from other sources. Held, fur- ITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (City Court ther, that under the evidence in this proceed- of New York, General Term. October 29, ing it cannot be said that the surrogate's court 1900.) Action by Sophie F. Brown against the did not properly exercise its discretion in fix- Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From ing the amount to be paid annually to the ap- a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. pellant. In case of any material change in Afirmed. Henry A. Robinson, for appellant. the circumstances of the parties, they are at M. P. O'Connor, for respondent. liberty to apply to the surrogate's court for PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with a modification of the decree. All concur.

costs. SPRING, J., concurs upon the ground, only, that the surrogate's court properly exercised BRUCE v. HURLBUTT. (Supreme Court, its discretion.

Appellate Division, Third Department. September 11, 1900.) Action by De Witt Bruce

against Gansevoort De Witt Hurlbutt. No BLISS et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF (opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and BALDWINSVILLE, Defendant. (Supreme ) disbursements. Court, Special Term, Onondaga County. May, 1./00.) Action by Charles N. Bliss and others BUFFALO NATURAL GAS FUEL CO., against the village of Baldwinsville to fore- Respondent, v. BARBER ASPHALT PAV. close mechanics' liens. C. P. Ryan, J. C. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Meldram, and E. . N. Wilson, for plaintiffs. Division, Fourth Department. October 9, J. W. Shea, for defendant.

1900.) Action by the Buffalo Natural Gas HISCOCK, J. Judgment is ordered for de- Fuel Company against the Barber Asphalt Pavfendant upon the ground that Baldwin & Os ing Company. No opinion. Judgment and ortrander completed the building contracted to der atlirmed, with costs. be built for defendant by Jennie Van Dusen, under an arrangement with said defendant to

BURGIE, Appellant, v. DIME SAV. BANK 80 complete it for the moneys unpaid on said OF WILLIAMSBURGH et al., Respondents. contract when abandoned by said Van Dusen, (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second and save themselves from liability as her bonds- Department. July 17, 1900.) Action by Fredmen; that defendant had the right under such erick Burgie, treasurer, etc., against the Dime arrangement to pay to said Baldwin & Ostran-Savings Bank of Williamsburgh and Anton der the amount not earned under said con- Kluppel, wrongfully claiming to be trustee of tract when abandoned as aforesaid, and which the Journeymen Bakers' & Confectioners' Inmoneys plaintiffs seek to reach in this action. ternational Union, No. 5. No opinion.

InMeChesney v. City of Syracuse, 75 Hun, 503, terlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs. 27 N. Y. Supp. 508. Judgment for defendant.

BURKHARD, Appellant, v. CROUCH, ReBRADLEY et al. V. BRADLEY. (Supreme spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiviCourt, Appellate Division, Third Department. sion, Fourth Department. July 24, 1900.5 September 11, 1900.) Action by Nathaniel L: Action by Julia Klem Burkhard against Frank Bradley and' Clarence P. Bradley against P. Crouch. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, Peter B. Bradley. No opinion.

Motion for with costs. leave to go to court of appeals granted.

Order to be settled by PARKER, P. J. See 65 BURNHAM, Respondent, V. DENIKE et

al., Respondents (MESNIER, Appellant). (Su

N. Y. Supp. 514.

[ocr errors]

CITE

and 100 New York State Reporter preme Court, Appellate Division, Second De- deza, Gilliams & Co., against Ellen C. Osbert partment. October 26, 1900.) Action by Eliz- and another. No opinion. Order afirmed

B abeth A. Burnham against Charles W. Den- with costs. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 450. ike and others. PER CURIAM. The judgment under which

CARSON v. PRESS CO. (Supreme Court the sale was made having been reversed by Appellate Division, Third Department. Segthis court, the purchaser cannot be compelled tember 11, 1900.) Action by Robert Care all to take title. Order reversed, without costs, an infant, by David P. Carson, his guartu liti and motion to be relieved from the purchase ad litem, against the Press Company. No opis: granted, without costs.

ion. Motion denied.

1 C BURTON, Respondent, v. BURTON, Ap

CARTER, Appellant, . FAUCETT, Ple pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Diri Second Department. October 5, 1900.) Ac- sion, Fourth Department. July 24, 1943.) des tion by Isabella M. Burton against J.' How- tion by Samuel A. Carter against James Fer ard Burton. No opinion. Motion to open de cett. No opinion. Judgment and order afirmfault granted, on payment of $10 costs, and ed, with costs. on condition that the appeal papers be filed and served within 10 days, and the case

CASHMAN, Respondent, V. SARGENT & brought on for argument at the November GREENLEAF CO... Appellant. (Supreme term. See 65 N. Y. Supp. 1129.

Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department,

July 24, 1900.) Action by John B. Casting BUSCH, Appellant, v. CUMMINGS, Re- against the Sargent & Greenleaf Company, 1709 spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate 'Divi- opinion. Judgment and order affirmed with TIL 1 sion, Fourth Department. October 9, 1900.) costs. Action by Frederick A. Busch against Lowell M. Cummings. No opinion. Order affirmed, C. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ai

CATON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & with costs.

pellate Division, Second Department. July 23

ca 1900.) Action by Winfred Caton, an infaat

, BUSH, Respondent, v. DELAWARE, L. & etc., by Adelia Caton, her guardian ad liter. W. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- against the New York & Queens County Rezpellate Division, Third Department. Septem- way Company. No opinion. Judgment or ber 11, 1900.) Action by Lottie Bush, as ad- animously affirmed, with costs. ministratrix, etc., against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. No CHASE, Respondent, v, METROPOLITAN opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court

, Ar. costs. All concur, except PARKER, 'P. J., pellate Division, Second Department

. Octobe? and KELLOGG, J., who dissent.

19, 1900.) Action by Harry W. Chase aga Est

the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. CAMPBELL, Respondent, FRIED PER CURIAM. Judgment and order LANDER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, versed, and new trial granted, costs to a bide Appellate Division, Second Department. Oc: the event, unless within 20 days plaintiff sup tober 5, 1900.) Action by Samuel I. Campbell ulate to reduce recovery of damages to the sun against Albert Friedlander. and another. No of $1,000, and extra allowance proportionatels opinion. Motion denied, with leave to renew, in which case the judgment

V.

, as wodited, is unless the appellant perfect his appeal within unanimously affirmed, without costs of this sp10 days.

peal to either party.

HIRSCHBERG, J., dissents only as to ibe CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. WALKER et reduction, al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. July 17, 1900.) CHURCH, Appellant, v. WALSH et al. Re Action by Daniel J. Campbell against Joseph spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Dini Walker and others. J. Halstead, for appel- sion, Second Department, July 23, 1900.) lants. A. R. Latson, for respondent. No opin- tion by George W. Church against Elizabeth ion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Walsh and others.

PER CURIAM. Upon this motion for me CANTON BRICK CO., Respondent, v. argument it now appears that there is to satHOWLETT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap- stantial opposition to the dismissal of the af pellate Division, Fourth Department. July 24, peals, but that the real controrersy is as to : 1900.) Action by the Canton Brick Company whether any costs shall be awarded on step ngainst Alfred A. Howlett, impleaded, etc. dismissal. After careful re-examination of all No opinion. Judgment attirmed, with 'costs: the papers, we are satisfied that both sppeals All concur, except McLENNAN, J., not vot- should be dismissed, without costs. The orders ing.

heretofore made, denying the motions to dis
miss, will be vacated, and new orders made in

accordance with this memorandum.
CARDEZA et al., Appellants, v. OSBORN
et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appel. In re CITY OF BUFFALO. (Supretje
late Division, Second Department. October 16, Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

. 1900.) Action by Howard J. M. Cardeza and October 9, 1900.) Motion by the city of Buf another, composing the co-partnership of Car- falo to open Delevan avenue across the tracks

- 42nd

1.1.83

TATA

- the

« AnteriorContinuar »