deputy commissioners, who, after taking the evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution, held that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction on four of the charges specified and the trial thereupon proceeded upon the other two charges. At the conclusion of the evidence the deputy commissioner made the following report to the commissioner, accompanied by the evidence taken by him: "After mature deliberation I find Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan of the Twenty-Fifth precinct guilty of neglect of duty, in that he failed to repress or restrain the unlawful and disorderly houses within the Twelfth precinct, to which precinct he was attached as precinct detective, between September 24, 1899, and November 26, 1900, and did not arrest the persons guilty of violating the laws or ordinances for the suppression and punishment of crimes and offenses in certain places charged in the complaint. I further find Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan of the Twenty-Fifth precinct guilty of disobedience of rule 47, paragraph H, of the rules and regulations of the police department. I recommend that the said Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan of the TwentyFifth precinct be dismissed from the police force of the city of New York." This report was signed by the deputy commissioner, N. B. Thurston, and underneath is indorsed the following: "Approved, August 22, 1902. John N. Partridge, Commissioner." Upon this report and the approval of the commissioner there was entered that which we will denominate the final order in the proceeding, under the same date, in which there is a recital of the proceedings, all of the charges, numbering them from 1 to 6 inclusive, the trial before the deputy commissioner, and the reference thereof to the police commissioner for his decision; and then concludes: "Upon due consideration the police commissioner does adjudge the said Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan to be guilty of the charge and does convict him thereof, and upon such conviction adjudges and determines that the said Patrolman Stephen J. Reagan be dismissed from the police force of the police department of the city of New York. By Order of the Commissioner. [Signed] William H. Kipp, Chief Clerk." It will be observed that the final order, in form, convicts the relator upon all of the charges upon which he was tried, whereas, in fact, four of the charges were dismissed during the trial by the deputy commissioner after the close of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, and the trial then proceeded only upon the two remaining charges. Upon the conclusion of the evidence the deputy commissioner made his report to the commissioner, finding the relator guilty upon those two charges, and thereupon recommended his removal. The commissioner of police indorsed upon this report his approval, thereby confirming the conviction upon those two charges and the recommendation of the deputy for his removal. The final order appears to have been entered and signed by a clerk, and not by the commissioner. It does not conform to the finding and recommendation of the deputy commissioner, which was approved and confirmed by the commissioner. It is therefore apparent that the commissioner's judgment in imposing the punishment of dismissal from the force was based solely upon the two charges upon which he was found guilty, and the only error appearing in the case is that the clerk in entering the final order did not conform the same to the findings which were approved by the commissioner. The Appellate Division has unanimously affirmed, and we conclude that the only modification required is that the final order, as entered, be made to conform to the findings approved by the commissioner, by striking out therefrom the four charges which had been dismissed during the trial. Inasmuch as this relief could have been obtained upon an application to the commissioner, upon calling his attention to the error of the clerk in en76 N.E.-70

tering the order, we think that no costs of this appeal should be allowed to either party. The order of the Appellate Division should be modified in the particulars mentioned, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party.

CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., not voting.

PEOPLE ex rel. ROTHSCHILD, Appellant, v. MUH et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (101 App. Div. 423, 92 N. Y. Supp. 22), entered February 27, 1905, which affirmed a determination of the defendants in refusing to award the relator damages for a change of grade of a street in front of premises of said relator and dismissed a writ of certiorari to review the same. F. W. Hottenroth and Adolph C. Hottenroth, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly and George L. Sterling, of counsel), for respondents.

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

PEOPLE ex rel. RYAN, Appellant, v. STURGIS, Fire Com'r, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 620, 88 N. Y. Supp. 631), entered June 15, 1904, which affirmed the proceedings of the defendant in dismissing the relator from the fire department of the city of New York and dismissed a writ of certiorari to review the same. Delos McCurdy, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly, Terence Farley, and Thomas F. Noonan, of counsel), for respondent.

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

PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH, Appellant, v. VAN DE CARR, Warden, et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (86 App. Div. 9, 83 N. Y. Supp. 245), entered July 16, 1903, which reversed an order of Special Term sustaining writs of certiorari and habeas corpus on behalf of the relator. The motion was made upon the grounds that the relator had failed to perfect the appeal by filing an undertaking and had taken no steps towards the prosecution of said appeal since the filing of notice thereof. William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (Howard S. Gans, of counsel), for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted.

PEOPLE ex rel. VICTOR KOECHL & CO., Appellant, v. MORGAN, State Comptroller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 110, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1066), entered September 23, 1904, which modified, and affirmed as modified, a determination of the defendant assessing a franchise tax upon the relator. Edmund L. Cole, for appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (Horace McGuire, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur.

PERELES, Appellant, V. ROCHESTER GERMAN INS. Co. OF ROCHESTER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Div. 614, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1114), entered June 28, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Vernon Cole and Moses Shire, for appellant. Joseph W. Taylor, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

PERKINS, Appellant, v. STANTON, Respondent (two cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 30, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 631, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered August 17, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. D. Raymond Cobb, for appellant. Theodore E. Hancock, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur.

PLACE v. KENNEDY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (89 App. Div. 167, 85 N. Y. Supp. 766), entered January 7, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at Special Term after a verdict in an action for partition. Edward L. Blackman and Alfred B. Cruikshank, for appellant. Burton C. Meighan, for respondent.

PLATT, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF ONEONTA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (88 App. Div. 192, 84 N. Y. Supp. 699), entered December 14, 1903, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granted a new trial. Douglas W. Miller, for appellant. Albert C. Tennant and J. Lee Tucker, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

POWELL v. HARRISON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 13, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Depart

ment (101 App. Div. 612, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1142), entered January 12, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term in surplus money proceedings. James M. Sullivan and J. John Hassett, for appellant. Frederick Collin, for re spondent Chemung Canal Bank,

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

PURDY et al., Respondents, v. BRANTINGHAM, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 516, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1110), entered January 30, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Alexander Thain, for appellant. Allan C. Rowe, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., not voting.

RANDALL, Respondent, V. UNITED STATES LEATHER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (95 App. Div. 620, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1114), entered June 6, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. H. Austin Clark, for appellant. Martin S. Lynch, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., dissents on the ground of the erroneous instruction to the jury with respect to the liability of the defendant.

RANKINE, Respondent, v. DE VEAUX COLLEGE FOR ORPHAN & DESTITUTE CHILDREN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (94 App. Div. 611, 88 N. Y. Supp. 1114), entered July 5, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. John G. Milburn, for appellants. Francis Lynde Stetson and A. K. Potter, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

REYNOLDS v. BRITTON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 609, 92 N. Y. Supp. 2), entered March 11, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a_decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Robert J. Mahon, for appellant. Claude V. Pallister and Francis C. Reed, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., absent.

RIKER et al., Appellants, v. PRESIDENT, ETC., OF FIRE INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 16, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment entered January 18, 1904, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (90 App. Div. 391, 85 N. Y. Supp. 546), overruling plaintiffs' exceptions, ordered to be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division, denying a motion for a new trial and directing judgment for the defendant. Frederick. W. Smith, for appellants. Horace McGuire, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., dissents. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

In re RILEY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (109 App. Div. 95 N. Y. Supp. 1156), entered November 24, 1905, which affirmed a decree of the Kings County Surrogate's Court directing distribution of the estate of John Martin, deceased. John R. Kuhn and P. J. McGoldrick, for appellants. Melville J. France, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., not sitting.

In re RILEY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 6, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 183 N. Y. 576, supra.

RING, Respondent, v. HOWELL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 442, 87 N. Y. Supp. 682), entered May 19, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the Kings County Court on trial without a jury. Robert H. Wilson, for appellant. James C. Cropsey and Frank Mann, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

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

In re ROCKWOOD ST. IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (107 App. Div. 612, 94 N. Y. Supp. 841), entered September 23, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceedings. John C. Shaw, Fordham Morris, William Grossman, and William Arrowsmith, for appellants. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly, John P. Dunn, and Thomas C. Blake, of counsel), for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur.

ROLLINS, Respondent, v. CO-OPERATIVE BLDG. BANK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals

of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 606, 90 N. Y. Supp. 631), entered November 29, 1904, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury and granting a new trial. E. G. Bullard and George E. Waldo, for appellant. J. K. Long and Thomas S. Fagan, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against defendant on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., dissents.

ROTH, Respondent, v. ROTH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment, entered April 22, 1904, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (90 App. Div. 87, 85 N. Y. Supp. 640), which affirmed an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at Special Term after a trial of the issues of fact before a jury. William C. Rosenberg and Jesse S. Epstein, for appellant. Hugo Wintner, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

ROTH, Respondent, v. ROTH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 23, 1906.) No opinion. Motion to amend remittitur, by striking out costs against the appellant. granted, without costs of motion. See 183 N. Y.- , supra.

RUSSELL, Appellant, v. INMAN et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (90 App. Div. 618, 85 N. Y. Supp. 1146), entered January 22, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict directed by the court. J. H. Hanson, for appellant. Henry V. Borst, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, and VANN, JJ., concur. WERNER, J., not voting. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

SAXE, Appellant, v. OGDEN et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 631, 89 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered August 2, 1904, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term. Milton Mayer, for appellant. Laurence L. Driggs, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

SCHAUB, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (SS App. Div. 618, 84 N. Y.

SCHWARZENBACH, Respondent, v. ELECTRIC WATER POWER CO. OF ONEONTA, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (101 App. Div. 345, 92 N. Y. Supp. 187), entered January 10, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. A. R. Gibbs, for appellant. Alva Seybolt, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

SEIZER, Respondent, V. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Ap peals of New York. Feb. 16, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (101 App. Div. 609, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1145), entered February 6, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. George D. Yeomans and I. R. Oeland, for appellant. Edward A. Alexander and Jerome H. Buck, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

SCOTT, Respondent, v. CONN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 612, 87 N. Y. Supp. 1147), entered April 12, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. Edwin Countryman, for appellant. Charles D. Ridgway, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

SHANNON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK & Q. ELECTRIC LIGHT & POWER CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (99 App. Div. 627, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered December 23, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Eugene Lamb Richards, Jr., for appellant. Melville J. France, George V. S. Williams, and William R. Wilson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event, on the dissenting opinion of Woodward, J., below.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. BARTLETT, J., not sitting,

SHAPER, Respondent, v. DAVIS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 606, 87 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered June 22, 1904, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. Ch. D. Thomas and Adam J. Smith, for appellant. H. A. De Coster, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

SHEARY et al., Respondents, v. O'BRIEN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (75 App. Div. 121, 77 N. Y. Supp. 378), entered December 8, 1902, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and granting a new trial. John W. Browne, for appellants. H. D. Bailey, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against defendants on the stipulation, with costs in all courts, on opinion below.

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

SMITH, Respondent, v. HULL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 228, 89 N. Y. Supp. 854), entered October 20, 1904, in favor of plaintiff, upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. William F. Timm, for appellant. Franklin Couch, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs,

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

SOKOLSKI, Appellant, v. BUTTENWIESER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 18, 88 N. Y. Supp. 973), entered July 8, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the com

plaint by the court on trial at Special Term. Alton B. Parker and Edward W. S. Johnston, for appellant. Edward M. Shepard, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

SOMERS, Respondent, v. GUDE, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 21, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (93 App. Div. 614, 87 N. Y. Supp. 1148), entered April 22, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. A. S. Gilbert, for appellant. James H. Laird, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

SPENCER, Appellant, v. HUNTINGTON et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 App. Div. 463, 91 N. Y. Supp. 561), entered January 18, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon the report of a referee. Herbert Barry, Julien T. Davies, Charles H. Tuttle, and Julian C. Harrison, for appellant. Maxwell Evarts, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, HAIGHT, and WERNER, JJ., concur. BÁRTLETT and VANN, JJ., not voting. O'BRIEN, J., absent.

SPRINGER, Appellant, v. FUCHS & LANG MFG. CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 27, 1905.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (87 App. Div. 617, 84 N. Y. Supp. 1147), entered October 20, 1903, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of referee. Elbert Crandall, for appellant. Charles F. Brown and Louis M. Sonnenberg, for respondent.

STARKWEATHER, Respondent, v. SUNDSTROM et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 16, 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (108 App. Div. 356, 95 N. Y. Supp. 1162), entered November 28, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was frivolous. A. D. Wales, for the motion. Abram F. Servin, opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

STATE BANK OF PIKE, Respondent, v. BROWN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 6, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Su

preme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 441, 89 N. Y. Supp. 381), entered July 20, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. A. J. Hastings, for appellants. Greenleaf S. Van Gorder and Elijah W. Holt; for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

STRAUS, Respondent, v. BUCHMAN et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 27, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 270, 89 N. Y. Supp. 226), entered July 30, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Samson Lachman and Theodore Baumeister, for appellants. Charles Strauss, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur.

STRICKLAND, Respondent, v. HENRY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 9, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (97 App. Div. 637, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered October 20, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Charles M. Stafford, for appellant. John R. Farrar, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, and WERNER, JJ., concur.

SULLIVAN, Respondent, V. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 13, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the Fourth Judicial Department (98 App. Div. 635, 90 N. Y. Supp. 1115), entered December 7, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. Allen J. Hastings, for appellant. M. B. Jewell, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, and BARTLETT, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, J., not sitting.

SUNDHEIMER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 5, 1905.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 642, 94 N. Y. Supp. 1164), made June 9, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for retaxation of costs. The following question was certified: "Has a plaintiff who commences an action against the city of New York prior to January 1, 1902, such a right under section 261 of the Greater New York Charter as entitled him, when he recovered a judgment for less than $50 subsequent to its amendment by chapter 466 of the Laws of 1901, to a full bill of costs?" John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel