set forth in detail. The answer denied all the allegations of the complaint except that the plaintiff boarded the Campania at Queenstown as a third-class passenger for New York under a written contract of carriage, which was made a part of the answer, and which the defendant alleged that it duly performed. The contract thus pleaded was in the form of a "Passengers' Contract Ticket," which was proved on the trial, and was made subject by its terms to the following condition: "All questions arising on this ticket shall be decided according to English law, with reference to which this contract is made." It was contended that under the English law plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Howard Mansfield, Lucius H. Beers, and Henry De Forest Baldwin, all of New York City, for appellant. Arthur T. O'Leary and William McArthur, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. ORTH, Appellant, v. ANDERSON et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 20, 1917.) Appeal from a judgment, entered May 19, 1914, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (163 App. Div. 519, 146 N. Y. Supp. 689), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to foreclose a mortgage. The plaintiff alleged that on or about May 3, 1910, the defendant Adelaide M. Anderson made a promissory note payable to the plaintiff for $2,500, payable in three months, and that the plaintiff became an accommodation indorser thereof; that as collateral security therefor the defendants Frank S. Anderson and Adelaide M. Anderson gave a mortgage covering certain premises in the town of Delaware; that the mortgage was duly recorded; that the defendant Adelaide M. Anderson failed to pay the note when it became due; that the defendants failed to comply with the terms of said mortgage, and that there was due the plaintiff the amount thereof with interest. The answer of the defendant Adelaide M. Anderson admitted the signing of said note, but denied that she or Frank S. Anderson ever received the proceeds of said note and admitted that she signed and acknowledged said mortgage under protest, but denied that she ever delivered the note and mortgage to the plaintiff, and denied that there was justly due the plaintiff the sum of $2,537.50. Joseph Rosch, of Liberty, and James H. Curtis, of Callicoon, for appellant. John D. Lyons, of Monticello, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. ORTH et al. v. KAESCHE et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment, entered April 2, 1915, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (165 App. Div. 513, 150 N. Y. Supp. 957), reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiffs for the relief demanded in the complaint. This action was brought to set aside two assignments, one made by Paul Orth, and the other by Carl Orth, father of the plaintiffs, Carl R. A. Orth, by they assigned to the defendants Max B. | Kaesche and Frank H. Wasel, as executors under the last will and testament of Alfred Orth, deceased, certain sums of money out of their share of the estate of Alfred Orth, deceased, to be paid to the defendants Gertrude Miethe and Catharina Wasel. The assignments are attacked on the grounds of lack of consideration and fraud. Bernhard Bloch, of Brooklyn, and R. McClintock Robinson, of New York City, for appellants. James F. Donnelly and Frederick J. Flynn, both of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on ground that there was evidence to sustain the finding of the Appellate Division that the assignments of plaintiffs were obtained by misstatements and false representation. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PALMER et al., Respondents, v. STATE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 21, 1917.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements. See 220 N. Y. 565, 115 Ñ. E. 1045. PAULSON et al., Respondents, v. JESSE V. PALMER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 930, 153 N. Y. Supp. 1131), entered June 21, 1915, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict. This action was brought by the plaintiffs, sellers, to recover damages against the defendant, purchaser, for failure to accept an undelivered balance on two contracts made between the parties for the purchase and sale of cotton yarn. By its amended answer the defendant admitted the allegations with reference to the making of the contract and the amount of yarn which the defendant took, and that on or about May 27, 1911, it requested plaintiffs to stop all deliveries of yarn for about two weeks on account of strike or labor troubles in defendant's factory, but denied every other allegation in the complaint. For a separate defense it alleged that on or about June 15, 1911, it canceled the contracts referred to in the complaint and terminated the same and notified plaintiffs not to ship any more yarn under said contracts, and declined to accept further deliveries of yarn under said contracts on account of the continued strike of laborers in defendant's factory and the consequent shutting down of defendant's mill. Herbert Van Kirk, of Greenwich, and Edward J. Welch, of New York City, for appellant. Henry A. Rubino, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEARSON, Respondent, v. O'HERN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 18, 1917.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (170 App. Div. 937, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1136), entered July 10, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to compel specific performance of an alleged oral agree vey to him certain real property. The defend- [ second degree and abduction. Abraham H. ant interposed the defense that the agreement Kesselman, George W. Martin, and David F. was in violation of the statute of frauds, in- Price, all of Brooklyn, for appellant. Harry E. asmuch as the alleged agreement was oral; Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. that the statute of limitations had run against Hemstreet and Harry G. Anderson, both of the claim; that plaintiff's prayer would be de- Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People. nied on account of laches; that the same will defeat the ends of justice and was inequitable as against the rights of creditors. Alfred W. Gray, of Niagara Falls, for appellant. Henry D. Warren, of Lockport, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. POUND, J., not sitting. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, under the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. HOGAN and CRANE, JJ., dissent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DAVIS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDU-Department (177 App. Div. 883, 163 N. Y. CATION OF UNION FREE SCHOOL DIST. Supp. 1126), entered February 9, 1917, which NO. 1 OF TOWN OF MORAVIA, CAYUGA affirmed a judgment of the Court of General COUNTY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of Sessions of the Peace in the County of New New York. Dec. 18, 1917.) Appeal from a York rendered upon a verdict convicting the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su- defendant of the crime of rape in the second preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart- degree. Louis Kunen and Elias Rosenthal, both ment (173 App. Div. 1003, 159 N. Y. Supp. of New York City, for appellant. Edward 1132), entered May 31, 1916, which affirmed Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert a judgment of the court at a Trial Term ren- C. Taylor, of New York City, of counsel), for dered upon a verdict convicting the defendant the People. of the crime of maintaining a public nuisance. The defendant maintained a school building, a private sewer from which emptied into a creek which flowed into Owasco Lake, from which the city of Auburn procures its water supply. This prosecution involved chiefly the right of a person or corporation to empty large and continuous masses of human excreta into a body of water legally used as the source of water supply for a considerable number of persons, thereby constantly subjecting them to the danger of intestinal and other diseases. Hull Greenfield, of Auburn, for appellant. Albert H. Clark, of Auburn, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. HISCOCK. C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GEE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (177 App. Div. 940, 163 N. Y. Supp. 1126), entered March 6, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Essex County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendof Brooklyn, for appellant. O. Byron Brewster, ant of the crime of abduction. Peter P. Smith, of Elizabethtown, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE, Appellant, v. BURNS, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (178 App. Div. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GROUT, Appellant. 845, 166 N. Y. Supp. 323), entered July 30, (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 20, 1917, which reversed a judgment of the Court 1917.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from so of Special Sessions of the City of New York much of an order of the Appellate Division of convicting the defendant of willfully and with- the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Deout authority taking letters and private pa-partment (174 App. Div. 608, 161 N. Y. Supp. pers belonging to another and copies thereof, and publishing the same in violation of section 553 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40). Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert S. Johnstone and George F. Turner, both of New York City, of counsel), for the People. James M. Beck and John D. Lindsay, both of New York City, for respond ent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, on the ground that the defendant did not publish private papers, within the meaning of section 553 of the Penal Law. 718), entered December 8, 1916, as affirmed an order of Special Term denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, and from so much of the order of reversal as directed a new trial instead of dismissing the indictment. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was not authorized by section 519 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Herbert N. Warbasse, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Harry G. Anderson, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People. Edward M. Grout, of New York City, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CAR-dismissed, on the ground that the appeal is not DOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, inal Procedure. authorized by section 519 of the Code of CrimJJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CERULLI, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 930, 166 N. Y. Supp. 449), entered August 10, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Kings County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crimes of rape in the HISCOCK, C. J., and CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CHASE and MCLAUGHLIN, JJ., dissent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GUILEY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (171 App. Div. 973, 156 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered December 13, 1915, which affirmed a judgment of convic-, tion rendered by the Chautauqua County Court upon defendant's refusing to plead to an indictment charging her with adultery after disallowance of her demurrer thereto. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the crime charged in the indictment was alleged to have been committed on the 17th day of October, 1915, an impossible date, the same being in the future. Defendant also demurred to the indictment on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. Thomas H. Larkins, of Dunkirk, for appellant. Warner S. Rexford, of Jamestown, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgments of Appellate Division and of County Court reversed, and defendant discharged, on the authority of People v. Van Every, 222 N. Y. 74, 118 N. E. 244. HISCOCK, C. J., and HOGAN, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CHASE and CUDDEBACK, JJ., dissent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LA POINT, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (178 App. Div. 908, 164 N. Y. Supp. 1105), entered April 6, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Jefferson County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree. T. Arthur Hendricks and John Conboy, both of Watertown, for appellant. Jerome B. Cooper, Dist. Atty., of Watertown, for the Peopie. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PAUWELS, Appellant, (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (177 App. Div. 907, 163 N. Y. Supp. 1127), entered March 2, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York convict ing the defendant of unlawful practice of medicine in violation of section 153 of the Public Health Law (Laws 1893, c. 661). Alexander Lamont, of New York City, for appellant. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert C. Taylor and Felix C. Benvenga, both of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SIEKE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (167 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered November 9, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the city of New York, convicting the defendant of the crime of violating section 986 of the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40) prohibiting poolselling, bookmaking, bets and wagers. Upon appeal defendant contended that the seizure of the book, papers, cards, etc., taken from the defendant's living apartments, without a search warrant, and the introduction of the same in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, violated section 8 of article 2 of the Civil Rights Law (Consol, Laws, c. 6), known as the Bill of Rights of this state, and section 6 of article 1 of the state Constitution. Aaron P. Jetmore, of New York City, for appellant. Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed; the question of constitutional law argued by appellant was not raised on the trial. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., dissents. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TRIBELHORN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (171 App. Div. 952, 156 N. Y. Supp. 1139), entered January 3, 1916, which affirmed in the City of New York convicting the defenda judgment of the Court of Special Sessions ant of the crime of keeping a disorderly house. The motion was made upon the ground of failure of appellant to file his points and bring the appeal on for argument. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City, for the motion. William S. Gordon, of New York City, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ZIMMERMAN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 958, 166 N. Y. Supp. 1108), entered July 11, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Jefferson County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of riot. The indictment charged that defendant, with others, did wrongfully and unlawfully in the nighttime assemble on the property of the St. Regis Paper Company, a domestic business corporation, virtue of the laws of the state of New York duly organized and incorporated under and by and there situate; and at said time having so assembled together with other persons by the use of force and violence to certain employés of the said St. Regis Paper Company did wrongfully and unlawfully commit an assault upon such employés and persons and wrongfully unlawfully and feloniously break, demolish and injure both the personal and real property of the said St. Regis Paper Company and by disturb the public peace. T. Arthur Hendricks and John Conboy, both of Watertown, for apWatertown, for the People. pellant. Jerome B. Cooper, Dist. Atty., of means of such unlawful acts did then and there PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed in accordance with the provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. BUSINESS DETAIL CORP., Appellant, v. PRENDERGAST, City Comptroller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 15, 1918.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (176 App. Div. 911, 162 N. Y. Supp. 1113), entered January 31, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel audit by defendant of a claim for refund of certain fees paid to the sheriff of the county of New York. The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the required undertaking. Lamar Hardy, Corp. Counsel, of New York City, for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs, and $10 costs of motion. non. PER CURIAM. Order in each case affirmed, with costs. BACK, CARDOZO, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEand ANDREWS, JJ., concur. STOCK PEOPLE ex rel. FERGUSON, Respondent,, Corp. Counsel, for respondent city of Mt. Ver v. VROMAN et al., Board of Election Com'rs of Niagara County, Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York., Dec. 21, 1917.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (168 N. Y. Supp. 1124), entered October 22, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term deciding that chapter 444 of the Laws of 1914 and chapter 530 of the Laws of 1916 were unconstitutional and void, and directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus to the defendants requiring them to do all acts and things necessary to have the names of any and all candidates for city offices provided for by chapter 300 of the Laws of 1904, as amended, who might be nominated to such offices by independent certificates pur-1108), entered May 19, 1917, which confirmed a suant to the provisions of the Election Law, submitted to the electors of the city of Niagara Falls at the general election to be held on the 6th day of November, 1917. Robert J. Moore, Corp. Counsel, of Niagara Falls (S. Wallace Dempsey, of Niagara Falls, of counsel), for appellants. Frank S. Nicholson, of Niagara Falls, and George H. Cobb, of Watertown, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order reversed, with costs in all courts, and application for writ of mandamus denied, on authority of Cleveland v. City, of Watertown, 222 N. Y. 159, 118 N. E. 500. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEBACK. HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COM'RS, Respondent (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal in each of the above-entitled proceedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 489, 165 N. Y. Supp. 970), entered July 2, 1917, which affirmed an order entered upon the report of a referee dismissing a writ of certiorari to review special franchise assessments of relator's railroad crossing of Mt. Vernon avenue and Oak street in the city of Mt. Vernon. The relator's railroad formerly crossed Mt. Vernon avenue and Oak street, in the city of Mt. Vernon, at grade. Mt. Vernon avenue was laid out and opened subsequent to the purchase of the relator's right of way, and was not subject to the special franchise assessment. In the year 1905 the relator and the city of Mt. Vernon jointly petitioned the Board of Railroad Commissioners for an order eliminating the above grade crossings, in connection with others, and for a relocation of the line of the relator's railroad, as shown upon the plans mutually agreed upon, and which contemplated an increase in the railroad facilities of the relator. Such proceedings were had that the work was directed to be done under the provisions of law applicable thereto, and such work was actually undertaken and was well along at the time the assessments here under consideration were made. This work involved the construction of bridges carrying the relator's lines of railroad over these highways. These lines were not only relocated, but the number of tracks was increased from two to four, and the relator was enabled to materially increase its facilities by reason of this relocation of its tracks. The two assessments herein involved were made before the actual completion of the relocated lines, and before the relator had abandoned the original lines; but at the time of making these assessments no assessment was made against the Oak street grade crossing. George H. Walker and Alexander S. Lyman, both of New York City, for appellant. Frank A. Bennett, PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK YARDS CO., Appellant, v. SAXE et al., State Tax Commission, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (178 App. Div. 943, 164 N. Y. Supp. determination of the state tax commission refusing to revise and readjust the corporate franchise tax assessed against relator under section 182 of the Tax Law (Consol. Laws, c. 60) for the year ending October 31, 1914. The sole question was as to the amount of tax, the relator claiming that the respondents erred in their appraisal of the capital stock under section 193 of the Tax Law. No question was raised as to value of the tangible assets of the relator nor as to the average liabilities, but it was contended that a different method of valuation of the good will of the relator should have been adopted. The actual dividends having aggregated less than 6 per cent., the commission was required to appraise the capital stock under section 193 of the Tax Law, which it appraised at $500,000, the amount for which the good will was purchased, rejecting the appraisal by the relator, which sought to value the good will at one year's purchase on the amount of profits. Charles Capron Marsh, of New York City, for appellant. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (Harold J. Hinman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. BACK, CARDOZO, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEand ANDREWS, JJ., concur. V. PEOPLE ex rel. OLSEN, Appellant, SHERIFF OF ERIE COUNTY, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (174 App. Div. 281, 160 N. Y. Supp. 427), entered June 16, 1916, which reversed an order of Special Term discharging the relator on habeas corpus and remanded the relator to the custody of the defendant. The people sued and recovered judgment against the relator for a penalty upon a complaint charging that relator did wrongfully and unlawfully and in violation of section 176 and section 177 of said Conservation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 65), and in violation of rule 1, subdivision 8, of the duly adopted rules of the conservation commission use a gill net in the waters of Lake Erie at Buffalo, N. Y., which said net was not tagged in the manner prescribed by said rule 1, subdivision 8. An execution against relator's property was thereafter duly issued and returned unsatisfied. Subsequently, an execution was duly issued to respondent against the person of relator, and pursuant thereto relator was taken into the custody of respondent and so held until he was released by the order of Special Term. Thomas H. Larkins, of Dunkirk, for appellant. Merton E. Lewis. Atty. Gen. (B. F. Sturgis, of Albany, and William T. Moore, of Mechanicsville, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel., STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. SAXE et al., State Tax Commission, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 721, 166 N. Y. Supp. 887), entered October 25, 1917, which confirmed a determination of the state tax commission assessing a franchise tax against the relator for the year ending October 31, 1915. The claim of the relator was that it was exempt from the payment of such tax by the provisions of section 183 of the Tax Law (Consol. Laws, c. 60), for the reason that it was a manufacturing corporation which had "at least forty per centum of the capital stock * * * invested in property in this state and used by it in its manufacturing * * business in this state." Edward H. Letchworth, of Buffalo, Martin Carey, of New York City, and Daniel J. Kenefick, of Buffalo, for appellant. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (Harold J. Hinman and Claude T. Dawes, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for respondents. * PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PFLUGER, Respondent, V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (170 App. Div. 915, 154 N. Y. Supp. 1140), entered July 30, 1915, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through defendant's negligence in causing or suffering plaintiff, when boarding one of defendant's subway trains, at the Fourteenth Street station, in the city of New York, on the 11th of October, 1912, to step into the open space or cavity between the side door of the south-bound express car, at which she was entering, and the concave curve of the station platform at that point, and fall down and hurt herself. The answer was a general denial and plea of contributory negligence. B. H. Ames, Frederick Allis, and James L. Quackenbush, all of New York City, for appellant. David C. Hirsch and Saul Levine, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., not voting. QUIRK, Respondent, v. COYNE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 4, 1917.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (173 App. Div. 924, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1143), entered March 31, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to foreclose a vendor's lien. The motion was made upon the grounds that the judgment of affirmance by the Appellate Division was unanimous, that the exceptions were frivolous and present no question of law for review, and that the appeal was taken for purpose of delay only. Wallace T. Stock, of New York City, for the motion. William M. Miller, of Schenectady, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal RAFTERY, Appellant, v. OLSEN, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 20, 1917.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment entered July 16, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 890, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1107), overruling plaintiff's exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for defendant, dismissing the complaint in an action for services. The motion was made upon the grounds that the decision of the Appellate Division was unanimous and that permission to appeal had not been obtained. Paul N. Turner, of New York City, for the motion. Hector M. Hitchings, of New York City, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs, and $10 costs of motion. RAYNOR, Appellant, v. NEW YORK & L. I. TRACTION CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 8, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (166 App. Div. 927, 151 N. Y. Supp. 417), entered January 19, 1915, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury and granting a new trial in an action for assault and battery, to wit, the wrongful ejectment of plaintiff from The defendant opera car of the defendant. ates a street surface railroad in the town of Hempstead, Nassau county, under certain franchises granted by the board of highway commissioners of the town of Hempstead and the board of supervisors of the county. It is the construction of those franchises, particularly those granted by the board of highway commissioners, which is the subject of this appeal. The plaintiff became a passenger on one of the cars of this defendant company at a point known as stop 81, Milburn avenue, Baldwin, intending to go to Garden City. The distance is in round numbers 8 miles. She paid a fare of 10 cents to the deeasterly along the route of the second franchise fendant's conductor. She traveled a distance of 1,850 feet to the westerly boundary of the village of Freeport. She continued on the same car, over the route covered by the grant of the village of Freeport, easterly and then northerly Freeport, the point of beginning of the route of to the northerly boundary line of the village of the first grant. She then continued, on the same car, along the route of this first grant, incorporated village of Hempstead, that is, to northerly as far as a point just north of the She had traveled on the defendant's railroad a the Long Island Railroad crossing at that point. distance of 7.759 miles when she was ejected by employés of the defendant company for refusing to pay a further fare of 5 cents for the distance to be traveled, from the crossing above mentioned, to her destination, a distance of about 2,100 feet. It is the contention of the plaintiff, appellant, that she was entitled to complete passage to her destination for the fare of 10 cents paid, a distance of 8 miles, and that her ejectment was unlawful. Elvin N. Edwards, of Freeport, and Harvey J. George, of Roosevelt, for appellant. Henry J. Smith, Arthur G. Peacock, and James L. Quackenbush, all of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg ment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts. CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. REED, Respondent, v. NATIONAL ORDER OF DAUGHTERS OF ISABELLA et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. |