PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., not sitting. O'BRIEN, J., absent. NUNNALLY, Respondent, V. TRIBUNE ASS'N, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Appeal by permission from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (111 App. Div. 485, 97 N. Y. Supp. 908), entered March 9, 1906, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action for libel. The following question was certified, “Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ?” Henry W. Sackett and Edward L. Stevens, for appellant. George H. D. Foster, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Patterson, J., below. Question certified answered in the affirmative. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BIGLIZEN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 225, 98 N. Y. Supp. 361), entered April 6, 1906, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the County of New York rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of rape in the first degree. Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler and Lorlys Elton Rogers, for appellant. William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (E. Crosby Kindleberger, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. OAKESHOTT, Appellant, v. SMITH et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 384, 93 N. Y. Supp. 659), entered May 19, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract. John E. Parsons, for appellant. William B. Hornblower and Hoffman Miller, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with (*osts. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FROEHLICH, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (110 App. Div. 873, 96 N. Y. Supp. 488), entered December 8, 1905, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the County of New York rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of perjury. Lewis Stuyvesant Chanler and Lorlys Elton Rogers, for appellant. William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. (Robert C. Taylor and Robert S. Johnstone, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. OLCOTT, Appellant, v. SHEPPARD KNAPP & CO., Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.). Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (96 App. Div. 281, 89 N. Y. Supp. 201), entered July 26, 1904, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to enjoin the defendant from maintaining an awning and portico extending over the sidewalk in front of its premises. J. Hampden Dougherty, for appellant. Daniel Daly and Eugene F. Daly, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. PEOPLE, Respondent, V. KEENAN, Chamberlain of City of New York, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (110 App. Div. 537, 97 N. Y. Supp. 77), entered January 17, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to pay over to the state treasurer all moneys which have been paid into court and remained unclaimed for a period of 20 years or more. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and John F. O'Brien, of counsel), for appellant. Julius M. Mayer, Atty. Gen. (James G. Graham, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. O'NEIL, Respondent, V. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 607, 93 N. Y. Supp. 145), entered May 16, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict anů an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant. Charles F. Brown, Bayard H. Ames, and Henry A. Robinson, for appellant. George H. Hart, for respondent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROGERS, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 921, 98 N. Y. Supp. 1110), entered April 20, 1906, affirm ing a judgment of the Kings County Court 98 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered March 9, 1906, entered upon a verdict convicting the defendant which affirmed an order of Special Term canof the crime of attempted grand larceny in the celing an assessment of relator's capital and second degree. George W. Martin, for appel- | surplus for the purposes of taxation for the lant. John F. Clarke, Dist. Atty. (Peter P. year 1905. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel Smith, of counsel), for the People. (Curtis A. Peters, of counsel), for appellants. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- David Rumsey, for respondent. John R. Halfirmed. sey and John 0. Heald, for relators in similar CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. cases pending. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HIS COCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., absent. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SMALL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate PEOPLE ex rel. CITY OF GENEVA, ReDivision of the Supreme Court in the Third spondent, v. GENEVA, W., S. F. & C. L. Judicial Department (113 App._Div. 98 TRACTION CO., Appellant. (Court of ApN. Y. Supp. 1111), entered May 7, 1906, which peals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal affirmed a judgment of the St. Lawrence Coun- from an order of the Appellate Division of the ty Court rendered upon a verdict convicting Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Dethe defendant of the crime of rape in the second partment (112 App. Div. 581, 98 N. Y. Supp. degree. John N. Carlisle, for appellant. Clar- | 719), entered May 5, 1906, which affirmed an ence S. Ferris, for the People. order of Special Term granting a motion for PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the firmed. defendant to remove its railroad track from CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. the side to the center of a certain street in the BARTLETT, WERNER, and CHASE, JJ., city of Geneva. Charles A. Hawley and Lan W. Smith concur. VANN, J., not voting. sing G. Hoskins, for appellant. WILLARD BARTLETT, J., dissents. O'Brien, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, on authority of City of Rochester v. Rochester PEOPLE, Respondent, v. STROLLA, Appel City R. R. Co., 182 N. Y. 99, 74 N. E. 953, lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 70 L. R. A. 773, and of Chicago, Burlington & 1906.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a Quincy R. R. Co. v. State of Illinois (decided judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered April by U. S. Supreme Court March 5, 1906) 26 30, 1906, at a Trial Term for the county of Sup. Ct. 341, 50 L. Ed. 596. New York, upon a verdict convicting the defend- CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, ant for the crime of murder in the first degree. WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK, and The motion was made on the grounds that the CHASE, J., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. appellant had failed to file the return, or taken any steps to prosecute the appeal. William Travers Jerome, Dist Atty. (Robert C. Taylor, PEOPLE ex rel. GILHOOLEY, Appellant, v. of counsel), for the motion. James E. Brande, MCADOO, Police Com'r of City of New York, opposed. Respondent. PEOPLE ex rel. STONEY, ApPER CURIAM. Counsel for the defendant, pellant, v. SAME. (Court of Appeals of New assigned at the time of his arraignment, con York. June 12, 1906.). No opinion. Motion for tinues until the disposition of the appeal, unless reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 185 such counsel voluntarily withdraw from the N. Y. —,77 N. E. 1194. case, or the relations as counsel are otherwise terminated. A new assignment of counsel is now unnecessary. Motion to dismiss appeal PEOPLE ex rel. HAMILTON v. POLICE denied. Appeal to be perfected in 60 days; in COM'R OF CITY OF NEW YORK. (Court default thereof the district attorney is at liber of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) ty to renew the notion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (100 App. PEOPLE ex rel. BROOKLYN UNION GAS Div. 483, 91 N. Y. Supp. 760), entered January CO., Respondent, v. LITTLETON, President of 17, 1905, which reversed an order of Special Borough of Brooklyn,, et al., Appellants. Term sustaining a writ of habeas corpus and (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, discharging the relator from custody, and di1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate rected that said relator be remanded to the Division of the Supreme Court in the Second custody of the defendant. The motion was Judicial Department (110 App. Div. 728, 96 made upon the ground that the appellant has N. Y. Supp. 444), made January 12, 1906, which not surrendered himself into custody, and is, affirmed an order of Special Term granting therefore not within the jurisdiction of the a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus court. William Travers Jerome, Dist. Atty. to compel defendants to issue and deliver to (Robert S. Johnstone, of counsel), for the morelator permits to open Flatbush avenue, in tion. Frederick B. House, opposed. the borough of Brooklyn, for the purpose of PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal laying gas mains. John J. Delany, Corp. Coun dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion, sel (James D. Bell, of counsel), for appellants. unless the defendant, on or before November 1, William N. Dykman, for respondent. 1906, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. courts of this state, and while so in the juris diction of the courts of this state argues the CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, ED appeal in this court. WARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., absent. PEOPLE ex rel. JAY, Appellant, v. O'DON NEL et al., Tax Com'rs, Respondents. (Court of PEOPLE ex rel. CONTINENTAL INS. CO., Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal Respondent, v. O'DONNEL et al., Tax Com’rs, from an order of the Appellate Division of the SuAppellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. preme Court in the First Judicial Department June 19, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the (112 App. Div. - 98 N. Y. Supp. 1112), Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the entered March 9, 1906, which affirmed an order First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. - of Special Term quashing a writ of certiorari, and confirming the proceedings of the defendants in assessing the relator for taxes for the year 1904. Flamen B. Candler, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (George S. Coleman and Curtis A. Peters, of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. PERKINS et al., Respondents, v. ISAAC H. BLANCHARD CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment entered June 8, 1905, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (104 App. Div. 630, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1144), overruling defendant'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 plaintiffs on the verdict, in an action to recover the value of certain paper belonging to the plaintiffs, and alleged to have been converted by the defendant to its own use. Henry Aplington, for appellant. Charles D. Ridgway, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ. concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. 9 PEOPLE ex rel. LA CHICOTTE, Appellant, v. BEST, Bridge Com'r, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. — 98 N. Y. Supp. 1112), -, entered April 6, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term quashing an alternative writ of mandamus to compel defendant to reinstate the relator in the position of principal assistant engineer in the department of bridges in the city of New York. Francis G. Caffey and J. Quintus Cohen, for appellant. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Theodore Connoly and William B. Crowell, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. LA CHICOTTE, Appellant, V. BEST, Bridge Com'r, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. The case must be brought again to this court by a new appeal taken from the amended order. See 185 N. Y. 600, supra. PHENIX BRIDGE CO., Respondent, v. CREEM et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 354, 92 N. Y. Supp. 855), entered March 31, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover the expense of defending an action brought against the plaintiff, and the amount of a judgment paid in settlement thereof, which judgment was recovered for personal injuries occasioned by defendants' negligence in the performance of certain work subcontracted to the defendants by plaintiff. Robert H. Wilson, for appellants. Henry Galbraith Ward and George M. Clarke, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., dissents. GRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ., absent. PEOPLE ex rel. NORTHERN ASSUR. CO. OF LONDON ENG., Respondent, V. v O'DONNEL et al., Tax Com’rs, Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 93 N. Y. Supp. 1112), entered March 9, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term canceling assessments for taxation of capital employed in business in this state by the relator for the year 1905. John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (Curtis A. Peters, of counsel), for appellants. David Rumsey, for respondent. John R. Halsey and John O. Heald, for relators in similar cases pending. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. CHASE, J., absent. PEOPLE ex rel. RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. CLARKE, Justice, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 19, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. — 99 N. Y. Supp. . 1145), entered May 2, 1906, which denied a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendant to settle and sign a certain decision and judgment. William V. Rowe and William F. Corliss, for appellant. Flamen B. Candler, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order denying mandamus affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., not voting. In re PITNEY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) . Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department 113 App. Div. 845, 99 N. Y. Supp. 588), entered July 5, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting the application of Henry C. Pitney and James M. Halsted to be discharged as trustees under the will of Catharine C. Halsted, deceased, settling their accounts and appointing a new trustee. George W. Carr, for appellant. Edgar J. Nathan, for respondent trustees. William T. Gilbert, for respondent Charles C. Lockwood. PER CURIAM. The selection of a new or substituted trustee rested in the discretion of the Supreme Court, and is not subject to review by this court. It is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether the infant has any interest in the corpus of the trust fund. Therefore, the compensation for the services of the guardian was necessarily limited to taxed costs, and the court was not authorized to make him an allowance. Matter of Holden, 126" N. Y. 589, 27 N. E. 1063; Matter of Robinson, 40 App. Div. 30, 57 N. Y. Supp. 523; affirmed 160 N. Y. 448, 55 N. E. 4. The order appealed from should be modified so as to strike out the allowance to the guardian ad litem, and in lieu thereof direct that said guardian be paid his costs to be taxed, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. Ordered accordingly. PRESTON V. BRINLEY et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (106 App. Div. 593, 94 N. Y. Supp. 782), entered January 11, 1906, modifying, and affirming as modified, a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage. Alfred R. Page, for appellants. Charles W. Dayton, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that a new trial would be of no benefit to the appellants. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. York. June 12, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 490, 93 N. Y. Supp. 140), entered April 24, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action by attachment creditors to recover an amount owing by the defendants to the attachment debtors, and levied upon by virtue of the warrant of attachment. Fred Cyrus Leubuscher and Howard P. Nash, for appellants. Edward Hassett and Philip Carpenter, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. PRESTON, Respondent, v. REINHART et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 15, 1906.). Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (109 App. Div. 781, 96 N. Y. Sup. 851), entered January 12, 1906, which affirmed a judgment of Special Term in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage. William H. Hamilton, for appellants. Charles W. Dayton and Joseph E. Bullen, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion in Preston V. Rockey, 185 N. Y. 186, 77 N. E. 1156. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. In re ROXBURY. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 1, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (111 App. Div. 914, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1131), entered February 13, 1906, which affirmed an order of the New York County Surrogate's Court denying an application for the payment of the income of a trust fund created by the will of Thomas J. Kearney, deceased. Aaron J. Colnon and Raymond D. Thurber, for appellant. Vincent T. Coughlin, for respondents McCall and others. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, without costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. REIDY, Appellant, V. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) No opinion. 'Motion to amend remittitur by striking therefrom the provision for costs in both courts granted, without costs. See 185 N. Y. 141, 77 N. E. 1011. RUSSELL, Respondent, V. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (105 App. Div. 636, 93 N. Y. Supp. 1145), entered May 5, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through defendant's negligence. Charles E. Patterson, for appellant. John B. Holmes, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and HISCOCK, JJ. concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. CHASE, J., not sitting. ROCHE v. NASON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 185 N. Y. 128, 77 N. E. 1007. SCALLON et al., Respondents, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 185 N. Y. 359, 78 N. E. 284. ROCKLAND LAKE TRAP ROCK CO., Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF PORT CHES TER, Appellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 12, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (102 App. Div. 360, 92 N. Y. Supp. 631), entered April 1, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff and defendants (respondents), entered upon the report of a referee in an action to foreclose liens upon a public improvement. Louis S. Phillips, Arthur R. Wilcox, and Jerome A. Peck, for appellant. Grenville T. Emmet, for respondent Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co. De Witt H. Lyon, for respondents George W. Studwell and others. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, WERNER, and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. O'BRIEN, J., absent. In re SCHREIBER’S WILL. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 21, 1906.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (112 App. Div. 495, 98 N. Y. Supp. 483), entered May 4, 1906, which reversed a decree of the New York County Surrogate's Court admitting to probate a paper propounded as the will of Jane Schreiber, deceased, and directed a trial by jury of certain issues of fact. Raymond Ballantine and Charles O. Maas, for appellant. James Ridgway, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, O'BRIEN, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, WERNER, HISCOCK, and CHASE, JJ., coucur. ROGERS, Respondent, et al. v. INGERSOLL et. al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with In re SCHROEDER (two cases). (Court of costs. Appeals of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Appeal CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, HAIGHT, by permission from an order of the Appellate VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, Division of the Supreme Court in the First and HISCOCK, JJ., concur. Judicial Department (113 App. Div. 204, 99 N. Y. Supp. 176), entered June 5, 1906,' which modified, and affirmed as modified, an order of SHANE, Respondent, V. NATIONAL BISthe New York County Surrogate's Court made in the above-entitled proceedings. CUIT CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of The following New York. Oct. 2, 1906.) Appeal from a judg. questions were certified: "(1) Is the administra ment of the Appellate_Division of the Supreme trix, under the evidence presented to the surro- Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (102 gate, liable to account for the money which she App. Div. 188, 92 N. Y. Supp. 637), entered received from the officers of the Schroeder & March 18, 1905, affirming a Judgment in favor Arguimbau corporation? (2) Was the surro of plaintiff entered upon à verdict and an order gate justified in overruling the referee's finding denying a motion for a new trial in an action with respect to the moneys paid to the adminis to recover for personal injuries alleged to have tratrix by the officers of the Schroeder & Ar been sustained through defendant's negligence. guimbau corporation, and in finding that the Frank Gibbons and Harry A. Talbot, for appelsaid moneys belonged to and formed a part of lant. Timothy G. Sheehan, for respondent. the estate of which she is administratrix, and PER CURIAM. in charging her therewith as an asset of the Judgment affirmed, with estate?" Charles M. Demond, for appellant. costs. Henry De Forest Baldwin, for respondent. CULLEN, C. J., and GRAY, EDWARD T. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. BARTLETT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, and CHASE, JJ., concur. CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BART- of New York. Oct. 16, 1906.) Motion to dis miss an appeal from an order of the Appellate SCHUESSLER et al., Respondents, v. FIRE Division of the Supreme Court in the Second INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Ap- Judicial Department (114 App. Div. — 100 N. pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. June Y. Supp. 194), entered July 24, 1906, which re 5, 1906.). Appeal from a judgment of the Ap versed an order of Special Term granting a mopellate_ Division of the Supreme Court in the tion for a compulsory order of reference. The First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 12, motion was made upon the grounds that the 92 N. Y. Supp. 619), entered March 21, 1905, . ), , papers served were defective, and that permission affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs en to appeal had not been obtained. McFarland, tered upon a decision of the court on trial at Taylor & Costello, for the motion. Willard Special Term in an action for the reformation Parker Butler, opposed. of a policy of fire insurance. George Richards, PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal for appellant. Alexander S. Bacon, for respond dismissed, with costs. ents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. SNIDER, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN CULLEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, EDWARD ST. RY. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, HISCOCK, and New York. June 5, 1906.) Appeal from a CHASE, JJ., concur. GRAY, J., absent. judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (103 App. Div. 596, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1146), enSCOTT V. SPENCER et al. (Court of Ape tered April 8, 1905, affirming a judgment in peals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) Motion to favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an dismiss an appeal from a judgment entered July order denying a motion for a new trial in an 6, 1905, upon an order of the Appellate Divi- action to recover for personal injuries alleged sion of the Supreme Court in the Second Judi- to have been occasioned through defendant's cial Department (106 App. Div. 614, 94 N. Y. negligence. Charles F. Brown, Bayard H. Supp. 1163), which affirmed an interlocutory Ames, and Henry A. Robinson, for appellant. judgment of Special Term overruling demurrers Perry D. Trafford, for respondent. to the complaint. The motion was made upon PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with the ground that the judgment appealed from costs. was not a final judgment, under section 190 of CULLEN, C. J., and EDWARD T. BARTthe Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court of LETT, HAIGHT, HISCOCK, and CHASE, Appeals had no jurisdiction to review the same. concur. GRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ., abErnest P. Seelman, for the motion. Alvan R. sent. Johnson, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion granted and appeal dismissed, without costs. SNYDER, Appellant, V. MONROE ECKSTEIN BREWING CO., Respondent, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 9, 1906.) SERRELL, Respondent, v, FORBES, Appel- Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court 25, 1906.) Appeal from a judgment of the Ap- in the Second Judicial Department (107 App. pellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Div. 328, 95 N. Y. Supp. 144), entered SeptemFirst Judicial Department (106 App. Div. 482, ber 20, 1905, affirming a judgment in favor of 94 N. Y. Supp. 805), entered July 17, 1905, defendant entered upon a decision of the court affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff en- on trial at Special Term. The motion tered upon a verdict, and dismissing an ap- made on the grounds that the appellant's exceppeal from an intermediate order permitting an tions were frivolous, no question of law was amendment of the summons and complaint in presented for review, and that the judgment of an action to recover for services alleged to have the Appellate Division was unanimous. Wilbeen rendered defendant's intestate. Charles T. liam D. Gaillard, for the motion. Henry W. Haviland and J. P. Bickerton, Jr., for appel Rianhard, opposed. lant. Herbert S. Brussel and E. Walter Beebe, PER CURIAM. Motion denied, with $10 for respondent, costs, JJ., |