EMSPAK, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme In re FARLEY, State Excise Com'r. (SuCourt, Appellate Division. Third Department. November 11, 1914.) Action by Theresa Ems-preme Court, Appellate Division, Second Depak, as administratrix, etc., of Frank Emspak, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with

costs.

partment. November 6, 1914.) In the matter of the Petition of William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, for an order revoking and canceling liquor tax certificate No. 23.169, issued to Abram V. Decker, and transferred to Elnathan Gazley. No opinion. Motion for stay granted by default.

FARLEY, State Excise Com'r, Respondent, v. SOULE et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 11, 1914.) Action by William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise of the State of New York, against Henry A. Soule and others. No opinion. Judgment and orders unanimously aflirmed, with costs.

spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, FARRELL, Appellant, v. WILLIAMS, ReFirst Department. October 30, 1914.) Action by Thomas F. Farrell against William Williams, as commissioner. E. P. Kilroe, of New York City, for appellant. W. E. C. Mayer, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

FATUM, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN, Q. C. & S. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. NovemBer 6, 1914.) Action by Elizabeth Fatum ban Railroad Company. against the Brooklyn, Queens County & Subur

PER CURIAM. The issue of fact, whether or not plaintiff had hold of the car before it started, was sent to the jury by the original words of a request to that effect by defendant's charge, and by an instruction following the counsel. The court also left to the jury to find whether the conductor in starting the car was in the exercise of reasonable care. After the issue whether plaintiff had tried to board a car at rest, or one already starting, had thus been

clearly presented to the jury, if defendant's counsel wished a further charge on the point of contributory negligence, he might have made an appropriate request for such instruction. In the absence of such request, no error appears. We cannot say that the verdict of $1,250 is excessive. The judgment and order of the County Court of Queens County are therefore unanimously affirmed, with costs.

FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK OF PONTIAC v. VALENTINE et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 16, 1914.) Action by the First Commercial Bank of Pontiac against Moses M. Valentine and another. No opinion. Motion granted; questions certified; order filed. See, also, 155 App. Div. 91, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1037; 163 App. Div. 709, 148 N. Y. Supp. 792.

FIRST NAT. BANK OF BINGHAMTON, Respondent, v. BAKER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third DepartSeptember 23, 1914.) Action by the First National Bank of Binghamton against Ervin D. Baker and others, impleaded with another. For former opinion, see 163 App. Div. 72, 148 N. Y. Supp. 372.

FAULHABER, Appellant, v. KLINE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 30, 1914.) Action by George E. Faulhaber against George C. Kline.ment. L. E. Ginn, of New York City, for appellant. Daniel E. Hanlon, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

FAUST, Appellant, v. GOLDEN, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 23, 1914.) Action by William P. Faust against William Golden. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

FAY, Respondent, v. SCHENECTADY RY. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 23, 1914.) Action by Dudley H. Fay, infant, by guardian, etc., against the Schenectady Railway Com

pany.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals granted, and question certified as follows: Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? LYON, J., not sitting.

FIRST NAT. BANK OF DETROIT, MICH., v. HOLLINS et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Action by the First National Bank of Detroit, Division, Second Department. October 2, 1914.) Mich., against Harry B. Hollins and others.

PER CURIAM. We think that the amended complaint in this action is sufficiently explicit, and that the order directing the service by the plaintiff of a bill of particulars was erroneous. Therefore the order directing the service of the KELLOGG and LYON, JJ., vote to reduce and disbursements, and the motion is denied, bill of particulars is reversed, with $10 costs the verdict to $12,000. with $10 costs. See, also, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1111.

FEIGL, MORAVEK & CO. v. FEIGL. (SuFISCH, Respondent, v. FISCH, Appellant. preme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Dement. October 16, 1914.) Action by Feigl, partment. November 13, 1914.) Action by Moravek & Co. against Ernst Feigl. No opin- Sarah R. Fisch against George D. Fisch. M. ion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order fil- Brown, for appellant. M. A. Pompan, of New ed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1081. York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

FEIGL, MORAVEK & CO., Respondent, v. FEIGL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 16, 1914.) Action by Feigl, Moravek & Co. against Ernst Feigl. A. D. Lind, of New York City, for appellant. S. Leavitt, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1081.

FILKINS, Respondent, v. WOHLBERG, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 30, 1914.) Action by Eliza J. Filkins against John Wohlberg. No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed,

In re FONDA, J. & G. R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 23, 1914.) In the matter of the application of the Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville Railroad Company, under section 174 of the Railroad Law (Consol. Laws, c. 49), for the appointment of three commissioners to deter

be constructed and operated by the applicant | Gulf Brewing Company. No opinion. Judgin, over, through, and upon the surface of Leslie ment affirmed, with costs. street, in the city of Amsterdam, N. Y. No opinion. Application granted, and the following commissioners appointed: Hon. Joseph L. Moore, of Ft. Plain; B. Frank Diefendorf, of Canajoharie; and James A. Smeallie, of Am

sterdam.

FONTANELLA, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 30, 1914.) Action by Louis Fontanella against the New York Central & Hudson River

FOSTER, Respondent, V. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 11, 1914.) Action by Holland Foster against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Judg ment and order unanimously affirmed, with

costs.

FRANCES CO.

Railroad Company. W. G. Cooke, of New York Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
V. WALDO. (Supreme
City, for appellant. R. A. Kutschbach, of New October 16, 1914.) Action by the Frances Com-
York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judg-pany against Rhinelander Waldo. No opinion.
ment affirmed, with costs.
Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.

Order filed.

FRANCIS, Appellant, v. MEIGHAN et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. October 2, 1914.) Action by Nina H. Piffard Francis against Burton C. Meighan and another, as executors, etc. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

FRANK v. GRUBER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November Herbert B. Gruber. No opinion. 13, 1914.) Action by Adam Frank against Motion to withdraw appeal denied, without costs. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1082.

FRANK v. GRUBER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 13, 1914.) Action by Adam Frank against Herbert B. Gruber. No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1082.

FRANK v. GRUBER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. November 13, 1914.) Action by Adam Frank against Herbert B. Gruber. No opinion. Motion granted, without costs. Order filed. See, also, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1082.

LEY et al., Respondents.
FRANKLIN et al.. Appellants, v. HOAD-
(Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, First Department. October
16, 1914.) Action by William B. Franklin and
impleaded with Joseph Leiter. E. L. Mooney, of
another against Joseph H. Hoadley and others,
of New York City, for respondents. No opin-
New York City, for appellants. C. T. Terry,
ion. Order affirmed. with $10 costs and dis-
bursements. Order filed. See, also, 145 App.
Div. 228, 130 N. Y. Supp. 47.

FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De

partment. October 21, 1914.) Action by Ben- | Action by Maria Galina, as administratrix, jamin E. Franklin against the New York Cen- against Patrick McGovern and another. C. J. tral & Hudson River Railroad Company. No Heermance, of New York City, for appellants. opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon H. A. Callan, of New York City, for respondstipulation filed.

ent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm

SCOTT, J., dissents.

FRESUSK, Respondent, v. PITTSBURGH ed, with costs. Order filed. CONTRACTING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 6, 1914.) Action by Charles Fresusk against the Pittsburgh Contracting Company. No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1116.

GAFFEY et al., Appellants, v. TOWN OF NEWFIELD, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. September 23, 1914.), Action by Albert Gaffey and another against the Town of Newfield. No opinion. Motion denied. See, also, 163 App. Div. 66, 148 N. Y. Supp. 772.

GALLAGHER, Respondent, v. VAN BOSKERCK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 16, 1914.) Action by Loretta I. Gallagher against Elizabeth Van Boskerck. A. I. Elkus, of New York City, for appellant. E. A. Smith, of New der reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, York City, for respondent. No opinion. Orand motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.

GEBER V. JOHN WANAMAKER, NEW YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. October 16, 1914.) Action by Joseph B. Geber against John Wanamaker, New York. No opinion. Motion grantGALE, Appellant, v. CORTLAND COUN-ed, unless appellant complies with terms statTY TRACTION CO. et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. November 11, 1914.) Action by Cora D. Gale, as administratrix, etc., of Harray A. Gale, deceased, against the Cortland County Traction Company and another. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

GALINA, Respondent, v. McGOVERN et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi

ed in order. Order filed.

GEORGE v. JOHNSON et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. November 6, 1914.) Action by Mary E. George, individually and as executrix, etc., against Margaret J. Johnson, individually and as administratrix, etc. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, on authority