Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

spondentet, for appellon for a des court

1 PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with McGOWN et al., Appellants, V. BARNUM costs. et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, York. Oct. 27, 1905.) No opinion, Motion for

BARTLETT, WERNER, and OHASE, JI. reargument and to amend remittitur denied,

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. without costs. See 182 N. Y. 547, 75 N. E. 155.

MERTZ et al., Respondents, v. PRESS et al.,

Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York MCMAHON, Appellant, V. CRUCIBLE Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the STEEL CO. OF AMERICA, Respondent. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, First Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 443, 1905.) No opinion. Motion for reargument 91 N. Y. Supp. 264), entered January 17, 1905, denied, with $10 costs. See 182 N. Y. 540, 75 affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs N. E. 1131.

entered upou a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Frederic J. Swift, for appellants. Ernest Hall, MACKALL et al., Appellants, v. OLCOTT et for respondents. al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from an order

costs. of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, in the First Judicial Department (93 App. Div. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and 282, 87 N. Y. Supp. 757), entered April 19, 1904,

CHASE, JJ., concur. reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial. Her. . METCALF, Respondent, v, METCALF, Apo bert C. Smyth, Frank Trenholm, and Millard F. pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Tompkins, for appellants. J. Hampden Dough Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the erty and James MacGregor Smith, for respond Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in ents.

the Fourth Judicial Department (97 App. Div. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg. 641, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1105), entered October 18, ment absolute ordered against the appellants 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintii on the stipulation, with costs,

entered upon a verdict and an order denying CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, a motion for a new trial. H. L. Munson and A. VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, B. Ottaway, for appellant. Oharles H. Adding. and HÍSCOCK, JJ., concur.

tou, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. "Judgment affirmed, with

costs. MCWILLIAMS, Respondent, V. YELLOW GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, PINE CO., Appellant.“ (Court of Appeals of VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, aud CHASE, New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a

JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent. judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 624, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1133), enter MEUER, Respondent, V. PHENIX NAT. ed March 9, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor BANK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order York. Oct27, 1905.). Appeal from a judgdenying a motion for a new trial Eustace meut of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Conway, for appellant. William M. I len and Court in the First Judicial Department (94 James J. Macklin, for respondent.

App. Div. 331, 88 N. Y. Supp. 83), entered May PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

21, 1904, affirming a judgment' in favor of costs.

plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. denying a motion for a new trial. Richard F. BARTLETT, HAIGHT. VANN. and CHASE. Goldsborough and McCready Sykes, for appelJJ., concur. 'WILLARD BARTLETT, J., not lant. Joel M. Marx and Lawrence Goldberg, sitting.

for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with

costs. MANDA, Appellant, v. ETIENNE, Respond. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, ent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., con 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 623, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1103), entered December 16, MILLER, Respondent, V. SENECA RIVER 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defend POWER 00. et al., Appellants. (Court of ant entered upon a verdict directed by the court Appeals of New York. Dec. 12, 1905.) Ap and an order denying a motion for a new trial. peal from a judgment of the Appellate Division Hector M. Hitchings, for appellant. Henry W. of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Rudd and McCready Sykes, for respondent. Department (94 App. Div. 609, 87 N. Y. Supp. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

1141), entered April 7, 1904, which affirmed a costs.

judgment of the Onondaga County Court afCULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

firming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enHAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

tered upon a decision of the Municipal Court BARTLETT, J., absent.

of the city of Syracuse. Jerome L. Cheney and John B. Tuck, for appellants. Eugene M.

White, for respondent. MAUCH, Respondent, v. SUPREME TRIBE PER CURIAM. Judgment afirmed, with OF BEN HUR, Appellant. (Court of Appeals costs. of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERpreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart YER, JJ., concur. ment (100 App. Div. 49, 91 N. Y. Supp. 567), entered December 20, 1904, affirming a judge ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the re MILLER, Respondent, V. SENECA RIVER port of a referee. P. S. Collins, for appellant. POWER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of Henry Donnelly, for respondent.

| New York. March 13, 1906.) Appeal from : judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su: | 1904, which affirmed a judgment of the Ononpreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart daga County Court affirming a judgment of the ment (102 App. Div. 619, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1134), Municipal Court of the City of Syracuse in entered March 7, 1903, modifying, and affirm favor of plaintiff. E. W. Cregg, for appellants. ing as modified, a judgment in favor of plain C. W. Darling, for respondent. tiff entered upou the report of a referee. Je PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with rome L. Cheney and John B. Tuck, for ap

costs. pellant. E. M. White, for respondent.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, PER OURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., costs.

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.
GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT,
VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE,
JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

MURPHY, Respondent, v. CUFF, Appellant.

(Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, MOORE. Respondent, v. HOYT et al., Ap

1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap

pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the pellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Fourth Judicial Department (100 App. Div. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of 513, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1104), entered January the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court 30, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plainin the Third Judicial Department (95 App. Div. | tiff entered upon a verdict and an order deny620, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1110), entered June 24,

ing a motion for a new trial. John N. Carlisle, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plain

for appellant. F. B. Pitcher and George A. tiff entered upon the report of a referee. Rich

Lawyer, for respondent. ard L. Hand and Robert Dornburgh, for ap

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with pellants. J. Sanford Potter, for respondent.

costs. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. costs.

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BART

BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. LETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. 'J., not voting. CHASE, J., not sitting.

MURPHY, Respondent, v. UNITED STATES

FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO., AppelIn re MOSHER'S ESTATE. (Court of Ap lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. peals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Motion

27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Apto dismiss an appeal from an order of the Ap

pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the

Fourth Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 93, First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 459,

91 N. Y. Supp. 582), entered January 12, 1905, 93 N. Y. Supp. 123), entered May 3, 1905,

affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff enter

ed upon the report of a referee. Thomas reversing a judgment in favor of appellant herein entered upon the report of a referee and

Hogan, for appellant. William F. Hodge, for directing a new trial before another referee.

respondent. The motion was made upon the ground that

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with the order of the Appellate Division herein was costs. not appealable under section 191 of the Code CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, of Civil Procedure. M. J. Earley, for the mo BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ. tion. George W. McKenzie, opposed.

concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs. If the judgment on the report of the referee was reversed by the Appellate Division MUTUAL LOAN ASS'N, Respondent, V. on questions of fact, as claimed by the respond LESSER et al., Appellants (two cases). ent, which claim is apparently justified by his (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) citations from the opinion of the court, the Appeals from judgments of the Appellate Di. order fails to show it, and under section 1338 vision of the Supreme Court in the First Juof the Code of Civil Procedure it must be pre dicial Department (94 App. Div. 619, 88 N. Y. sumed that the reversal was not granted for Supp. 1110), entered May 16, 1904, affirming such errors, despite anything that may appear judgments in favor of plaintiff entered upon verin the opinion,

dicts and orders denying motions for new trials. Edward W. S. Johnston, Arthur Furber, and

Abraham A. Joseph, for appellants. Franklin MOSKOWITZ, Appellant, V. BROOKLYN Pierce, for respondent. HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent. (Court of Ap PER CURIAM. Judgments affirmed, with peals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal costs. from a judgment of the Appellate Division of CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial De

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERpartment (89 App. Div. 425, 85 N. Y. Supp. NER, JJ., concur. 960), entered January 5, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a MYERS, Appellant, v. HOBSON et al., ReTrial Term. Robert H. Roy, for appellant. I. spondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. R. Oeland and George R. Yeomans, for re Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the spondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Fourth Judicial Department (86 App. Div. - costs.

629, 83 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered July 7, 1903, CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT. reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff enHAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., con

tered upon a decision of the court on trial at cur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

Special Term and granting a new trial. Walter H. Knapp, for appellant. George L. Bach

man, for respondents. MOTT, Respondent, v. EDWARDS et al., Ap

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg. pellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. ment absolute ordered for defendants on the 16, 1906.) 'Appeal from a judgment of the Ap- | stipulation, with costs. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the · BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERFourth Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 511, NER, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, : 90 N. Y. Supp 303), entered November 28, | J., dissent. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

an order denying a motion for a new trial. NATIONAL CONTRACTING CO., Respond- | Julian G. Roberts and Albert G. Milbank, for ent, v. HUDSON RIVER WATER POWER

appellant. Augustus J. Koehler, for respondent. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with York. March 6, 1906.) Motion to amend re

costs. mittitur. See 170 N. Y. 439, 63 N. E. 450.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, PER CURIAM. Motion granted, so far as BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and to give the plaintiff the right to apply at Spe CHASE, JJ., concur. cial Term for the withdrawal of the demurrer to the third defense set up in the answer upon such terms and conditions as the Supreme PEOPLE, Respondent, V. BARTELS, ApCourt may impose.

pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal

from an order of the Appellate Division of the NEWTON, Respondent, V. NEW YORK

Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Depart. CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Áppellant. (Court of

ment (110 App. Div. — 96 N. Y. Supp. 1139), Appeals of New York. 'Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal

entered December 6, 1905, which affirmed an from a judgment of the Appellate Division of order of Special Term denying a motion for a the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Depart

change of venue. The motion was made upon ment (96 App. Div. 81, 89 N. Y. Supp. 23),

the ground that the appeal was unauthorized. entered July 11, 1904, affirming a judgment in Robert J. Burritt, for the motion. William A. favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and Cowie, opposed. an order denying a motion for a new trial. A.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal H. Cowie, for appellant. William Townsend,

dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

PEOPLE, Respondent, V. INGHAM, ApCULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, BART.

pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. LETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ.,

12, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the concur. GRAY, J., not sitting.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (107 App. Div.

41, 94 N. Y. Supp. 733), entered August 4, NIEWENHOUS, Respondent, V. NEW 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff YORK & H. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial of Appeals of New York. Nov. 28, 1905.) No Term without a jury. Myron G. Bronner, for opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Eu$10 costs. See 177 N. Y. 566, 69 N. E. 1128. gene E. Sheldon, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed with NORTHERN ELEVATOR CO., Limited, Ap

costs, on opinion below. pellant, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.,' Re

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb.

BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WER13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap

NER, JJ., concur. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 635,

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MOTOLA, Appel90 N. Y. Supp. 1107), entered December 8, 1904,

lant. (Court of Appeals of New York, Jan. 16, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant

1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an orentered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order denying a motion for a new trial. J.

der of the Appellate Division of the Supreme H. Metcalf, for appellant. James McCormick

Court in the First Judicial Department (103 Mitchell and Martin Carey, for respondent.

App. Div. 610, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1142), entered PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

April 28, 1905, which affirmed a judgment of the

Court of Special Sessions of the City of New costs.

York convicting the defendant of a misdemeanCULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

or. The motion was made upon the grounds BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., that the appellant had failed to file the return on concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

appeal and had taken no steps to prosecute the

appeal since the service of notice thereof. WilPARDINGTON, Appellant, V. ABRAHAM

liam Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (Howard S.

Gans, of counsel), for the motion. et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from an order

PER CURIAM. Motion granted. of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 359, 87 N. Y. Supp. 670), entered April

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PATRICK, Appel29, 1904, which reversed a judgment in favor

lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order 28, 1905.) denying a motion for a new trial and granted PER CURIAM. Motion to amend remittitur, a new trial. George G. Reynolds and F. Rey. by inserting therein a recital that upon the apnolds, for appellant. George Gordon Battle and peal to the Court of Appeals the defendant chalFrederick E. Fishel, for respondents.

lenged his conviction for murder as being in vioPER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judg. | lation of certain provisions of the federal Conment absolute ordered for defendants on the stitution, and that by its decision the said court stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.

overruled such contention, denied. See 182 N. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN,

Y. 131, 74 N. E. 843.
HAIGHT, and WERNER, JJ., concur. BART-
LETT and VANN, JJ., dissent.

PEOPLE, Respondent, V. SEELEY, Appel

lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. PATE, Respondent, v. SAYRE MOULDING 12. 1905.) Appeal from an order of the ApCO., Limited, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the New York. Feb. 13. 1906.) Appeal from a Third Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 149, judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su 93 N. Y. Supp. 982), entered May 25, 1905, preme Court in the Second Judicial Department which affirmed a judgment of the Schuyler (101 App. Div. 608, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1107), County Court rendered upon a verdict convictentered January 24, 1905, affirming a judgmenting the defendant of the crime of violating. in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and l section 31 of the liquor tax law (Laws 1897.

p. 233, c. 312). Lewis E. Mosher, for appellant. Seaman F. Northrup, for respondent.

PEOPLE ex rel. CHURCHILL, Appellant, PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction

V. GREENE, Police Com'r, Respondent. (Court

of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Apaffirmed. GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, and WER

peal from an order of the Appellate Division

of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial NER, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and

Department (104 App. Div. 496, 93 N. Y. O'BRIEN and VANN, JJ., dissent.

Supp. 720), entered May 11, 1905, which quashed a writ of certiorari and affirmed the pro

ceedings of the defendant in dismissing the PEOPLE, Respondent, v. THOMAS, Appel relator from the police department of the city lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. of New York. A. S. Gilbert and Otto A. 27, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Ap Rosalsky, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Thomas F. First Judicial Department (110 App. Div. Noonan, of counsel), for respondent.

96 N. Y. Supp. 1140), entered December PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. 13, 1905, which affirmed a judgment of the

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, Court of Special Sessions in the City of New

VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISYork convicting the defendant of a misdemean

COCK, JJ., concur. or in operating an automobile at an unlawful rate of speed. P. J. Rooney and Alfred Lauterbach, for appellant. William Travers Jerome, PEOPLE ex rel. ERIE R. CO., Appellant, Dist. Atty. (Robert C. Taylor, of counsel),

V. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS OF for the People.

STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction (Court of Appeals of New York. March 13, affirmed.

1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, Division of the Supreme Court in the Third HAIGHT, WILLARD BARTLETT, and Judicial Department (101 App. Div. 251, 91 N. CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent. Y. Supp. 977), entered January 19, 1905, which

confirmed a determination of the board of rail

road commissioners granting to the BinghamPEOPLE, Respondent, v. TODD, Appellant. ton & Southern Railroad Company a certificate (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.)

of public convenience and necessity pursuant Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of

to the provisions of section 59 of the railroad the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court

law (Laws 1895, p. 317, c. 545). W. D. in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Painter, for appellant. Eliot Norton, Alton B. Div. 636, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1113), entered July

Parker, and Theodore R. Tuthill, for respondent 25, 1904, which affirmed a judgment of the

Binghamton & Southern Railroad Company. Court of General Sessions of the Peace in

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. the County of New York rendered upon a ver CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, dict convicting the defendant of the crime of | VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISrape in the first degree. The motion was made COCK, JJ., concur. on the ground that the appellant had failed to file the required return and to prosecute the appeal. William Travers Jerome, Dist. PEOPLE ex rel. FINLEY, Appellant, v. Atty., for the motion.

GREENE, Police Com'r, Respondent. (Court PER CURIAM. Motion granted.

of Appeals of New York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Divi

sion of the Supreme Court in the First JudiPEOPLE ex rel. BROWN, Appellant, v.

cial Department (94 App. Div. 619, 88 N. Y. FINLEY et al., Respondents. . (Court of Ap

Supp. 1113), entered May 17, 1904, which afpeals of New York. "Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal

firmed the proceedings of the defendant in

reducing the relator from the grade of roundsfrom an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Depart

man to patrolman in the police force of the ment (95 App. Div. 619, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1113),

city of New York. Louis J. Grant and Jacob entered June 15, 1904, which affirmed an order

Rouss, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. of Special Term denying an application for a

Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Terence Farperemptory writ of mandamus to compel the

ley, of counsel), for respondent, defendants to audit a certain claim of the re PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. lator. Edgar T. Brackett and Horace E. Mc CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, Knight, for appellant. John H. Burke, for VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISrespondents.

COCK, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.
CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT,
VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS-

PEOPLE ex rel. GREENBERG, Appellant, COCK, JJ., concur.

V. WARDEN OF CITY PRISON OF NEW
YORK et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals

of New York. March 6, 1906.) Motion to disPEOPLE ex rel. BROWN, Appellant, V.

miss an appeal from an order of the Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court in the First JuGREENE, Police Com'r, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.)

dicial Department (83 App. Div. 456, 82 N. Y.

Supp. 439), entered June 4, 1903, which affirmAppeal from an order of the Appellate Divi

ed an order of Special Term dismissing writs of sion of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (106 App. Div. 230, 94

| habeas corpus and certiorari in behalf of relator.

he motion was made upon the ground that N. Y. Supp. 477), entered July 8, 1905, which

that no steps had been taken by the appellant confirmed the determination of the defendant

to prosecute and bring on for argument the in dismissing the relator from the police force

appeal since the service of the notice thereof. of the city of New York. J. Newton Fiero,

William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (Robert Louis J. Hamel, and Samuel J. Rawak, for

S. Johnston, of counsel), for the motion. appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal (James D. Bell, of counsel), for respondent.

dismissed. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT. VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., con: PEOPLE ex rel. HALEY, Appellant, V. cur. BARTLETT, J., not sitting.

| CAHILL, President of Common Council, et al.,

Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. | Court in the Third Judicial Department (109 Nov. 28, 1905.) No opinion. Motion for rear- | App. Div. , 96 N. Y. Supp. 1141), entered gument denied, with $10 costs. See 181 N. Y. | December 5, 1905, which affirmed a determina403, 74 N. E. 422.

tion of the defendant assessing a franchise tax against the relator for the year ending October

31, 1903. Thomas Emery and Ira A. Place, PEOPLE ex rel. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. for appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. POLICE COM'R OF CITY OF NEW YORK, (Horace McGuire, of counsel), for respondent Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. Jan. 16. 1906) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, Supreme Court in the First Judicial Depart:

VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISment (100 App. Div. 483, 91 N. Y. Supp. 760),

COCK, JJ., concur. entered January 17, 1905, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining a writ of habeas corpus, dismissed said writ and directed

PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & H. that the relator be remanded to the custody

R. R. CO., Appellant, v. KELSEY, State Comp. of the defendant. The motion was made upon

troller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New the grounds that the relator had not surrendered

York. 'Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order himself into custody and had failed to file the

of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court undertaking on appeal required by the Code of

in the Third Judicial Department (109 App. Civil Procedure. William Travers Jerom

Div. - 96 N. Y. Supp. 1141), entered DecemDist. Atty. (Howard S. Gans, of counsel), for ber 5, 1905, which affirmed a determination of the motion. Charles Goldzier, opposed.

the defendant assessing a franchise tax against PER CURIAM. Motion denied. We think

the relator for the year ending October 31, the fact that this defendant avoided the juris

1904. Thomas Emery and Ira A. Place, for

appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Horace diction of the court is not a sufficient reason for dismissing his appeal. Whether he should

McGuire, of counsel), for respondent. be permitted to argue the appeal until he sub

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. mits himself to such jurisdiction is another

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, question, to be met and disposed of hereafter. VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS

COCK, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. MARKT & STRULLER CO., Appellant, v. MILLER, Comptroller, Re PEOPLE ex rel. O'CONNOR, Appellant, v. spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. AHEARN, Borough PresidentRespondent. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate the Third Judicial Department (105 App. Div. Division of the Supreme Court in the First 637, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1143), entered May 18, Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 615, 92 1905, which affirmed a determination of the

N. Y. Supp. 1141), entered February 20, 1905, defendant assessing a license fee and franchise which affirmed an order of Special Term dengtax upon the relator. Edmund L. Cole, for ing an application for a peremptory writ of appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Hor mandamus to compel the defendant to reinstate ace McGuire, of counsel), for respondent.

the relator in the position of corporation inPER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. spector in the bureau of highways in the city

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, of New York. John W. Browne, for appellant. VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS

John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore ConCOCK, JJ., concur.

noly and William B. Crowell, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with PEOPLE ex rel. MOLLER et al., Appellants, costs. v. O'DONNEL et al., Com'rs of Taxes and CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, Assessments, Respondents. (Court of Appeals VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISof New York. Nov. 28, 1905.)

COCK, JJ., concur.' PER CURIAM. Motion to amend remittitur, so as to award costs to appellants in the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division only, and

PEOPLE ex rel. REAGAN, Appellant, V. not costs in the Special Term, granted. See

PARTRIDGE, Police Com'r, Respondent 183 N. Y. 9, 75 N. E. 540.

(Court of Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court in the First _PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & H. Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 609, 93 R. R. CO., Appellant, v. KELSEY, State Comp. N. Y. Supp. 1143), entered April 12, 1900, troller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New which dismissed a writ of certiorari and afYork. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order firmed the proceedings of the defendant in disof the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court missing the relator from the police force of in the Third Judicial Department (109 App. the city of New York. Abram I. Elkus, Carlisle Div. — 96 N. Y. Supp. 1141), entered Decem. J. Gleason, and Percival G. Barnard, for apber 5, 1905, which affirmed a determination pellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theoof the defendant assessing a franchise tax dore Connoly, Terence Farley, and Thomas F. against the relator for the year ending October Noonan, of counsel), for respondent. 31. 1902. Thomas Emery and Ira A. Place, HAIGHT, J. The relator was charged with for appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen.

(1) conduct unbecoming an officer; (2) con(Horace McGuire, of counsel), for respondent. duct injurious to the public peace; (3) neglect PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. and disobedience of orders under the rules of CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, the police department, particularly numbering VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HIS

the rules claimed to have been disobeyed; COCK, JJ., concur.

(4) neglect of duty (5) asking and receiving bribes upon the agreement that his action as

an officer should be influenced thereby contrary PEOPLE ex rel. NEW YORK CENT. & I to section 72 of the Penal Code; () perjury 1. R. R. CO., Appellant, V. KELSEY, State committed in the Supreme Court, criminal term, Comptroller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals in the case of People v. John D. Herlihy. of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an There were specifications accompanying these order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme charges. The trial took place before one of the

« AnteriorContinuar »