(125 N.E.) chia and George P. Foulk, both of New York [ PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOJANOWSKI, HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, the Supreme Court rendered February 15, PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, NORTHERN WESTCHESTER LIGHTING PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal O'ESAU, Respondent, v. E. W. BLISS CO. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CASSIDY, Appel- 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, firming an award of the State Industrial Com-lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. John M. 18, 1919.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument de- mission made under the Workmen's Compensa- PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DE SOMMA, Ap- at a Trial Term for the county of Westchester, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. James Dempsey, of Peeksville, and John Palmieri, of New York City, for appellant. Lee Parsons Davis, Parsons Davis, Dist. Atty., of White Plains (Thomas A. McKennell, of White Plains, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ESPOSITO, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered December 13, 1918, at a Trial Term a Trial Term for the county of Schenectady, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. See, also, 121 N. E. 344. James A. Leary and Walter A. Fullerton, both of Saratoga Springs, for appellant. John R. Parker, Dist. Atty., of Schenectady, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LOUIS K. LIGGETT CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (184 App. Div. 937, 171 N. Y. Supp. 44), entered June 21, 1918, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York convicting defendant of a violation of subdivision 2 of section 161 of the Labor Law (Consol. Laws, c. 31) prohibiting the employment of females in mercantile establishments after the hour of 10 p. m. Defendant, a corporation engaged in the drug business, contended that the working hours of its employés are fixed by section 236 of the Public Health Law (Consol. Laws, c. 45). The prosecution was based upon the theory that the defendant's store sold other things besides "drugs, medicines, chemicals, prescriptions or poisons" and, therefore, constituted a mercantile establishment within the meaning of the Labor Law. Junius Parker, Morgan J. O'Brien, Roy M. Sterne, and Vincent H. Rothwell, all of New York City, for appellant. Edward Swann, Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert C. Taylor, of New York City, of counsel, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and DREWS, JJ., concur. AN PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MCLAUGHLIN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered January 25, 1919, at a Trial Term for the county of Bronx, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Louis Susman and Samuel Goldstein, both of New York City, for appellant. Francis Martin, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Charles B. Mc Laughlin and Albert Cohn, both of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MIHITERIAN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the County of New York rendered January 15, 1919, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Charles E. Le Barbier, of New York City, for appellant. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert C. Taylor, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SABATINO, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 14, 1919.) PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument (of 120 N. E. 872) denied. See 224 N. Y. 589, 120 N. E. 871. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SAUL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 21, 1919.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (188 App. Div. 25, 176 N. Y. Supp. 353), entered May 23, 1919, which affirmed a judgment of the Kings County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of criminally receiving stolen property in the first degree. The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the return. Henry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SCHER et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Dec. 2, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (185 App. Div. 100, 172 N. Y. Supp. 564), entered November 15, 1918, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York convicting the defendants of the (125 N.E.) PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion. crime of conducting business under an assumed [ert S. Conklin, of New York City, of counsel), name in violation of section 440 of the Penal for the motion. Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40). Joseph Gans and C. Arthur Jensen, both of New York City, for appellants. Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, and John E. Ruston, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PEOPLE ex rel. FIDELITY & CASUALTY PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. JOSLIN, Mayor of Watervliet, et al., Respondents. HISCOCK, C. J., CHASE, CHASE, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and AN-1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appel(Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 21, DREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TRINCAL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 14, 1919.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (180 App. Div. 894, 167 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered October 26, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York convicting the the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40). The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the return. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Felix C. Benvenga, of New York City, of counsel), for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal defendant of a violation of section 1148 of dismissed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. USEFOF, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered February 8, 1919, at a Trial Term for the county of Bronx, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Martin W. Littleton, John D. Lindsay, Louis Susman, and Samuel Goldstein, all of New York City, for appellant. Francis Martin, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Charles B. McLaughlin and Albert Cohn, both of New York City, of counsel), for the People. late Division of the Supreme Court in the which reversed an order of Special Term PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. PEOPLE ex rel. IROQUOIS DOOR CO., Appellant, v. KNAPP et al., State Tax Commission, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal from an PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- order of the Appellate Division of the Sufirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., concurs, under provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PEOPLE, by PHILLIPS, State Supt. of Ins., v. UNITED STATES GRAND LODGE OF INDEPENDENT ORDER OF SONS OF BENJAMIN. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 7, 1919.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (187 App. Div. 890, 174 N. Y. Supp. 917), entered February 3, 1919, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing the state superintendent of insurance to take possession of the property and conduct the business of the United States Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Sons of Benjamin. The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the required undertaking and the return on appeal. Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (Rob preme Court in the Third Judicial Department (186 App. Div. 172, 173 N. Y. Supp. 641), entered January 24, 1919, which confirmed a determination of the state tax commission refusing to credit the relator, on its franchise tax for the year ending November 1, 1918, with more than one-half of the local tax paid by it in the year 1917. John A. Van Arsdale, of Buffalo, for appellant. Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (Claude T. Dawes, of Albany, of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. TOWN OF HARMONY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, SECOND DISTRICT, et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 14, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (187 App. Div. 962, 174 N. Y. [pellant. Montgomery Hare, of New York City, Supp. 917), entered March 4, 1919, which con- for respondents, Siedler et al. Joseph A. firmed, on certiorari, an order of the Public Warren and George A. Blauvelt, both of New Service Commission of the State of New York City, for respondents Palisades InterYork, Second District, denying an applica-state Park Com'rs. tion for an order directing the Erie Railroad Company to repair certain bridges over its right of way. Harlan L. Munson, of Westfield, for appellant. Marion B. Pierce, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CHASE and HOGAN, JJ., dissent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. RENO, Respondent, v. BULL et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York, Oct. 14, 1919.) Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements. See 226 N. Y. 546, 124 N. E. 144. ALBERT PETRY et al. v. LANGAN et al. (Court of Appeals of New York, Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (186 App. Div. ROSENFELD, Respondent, 738, 175 N. Y. Supp. 30), entered April 2, 1919, SMITH & SONS, Inc., Appellant, et al. which affirmed a judgment entered upon a de- (Court of Appeals of New York, Nov. 18, cision of the court on trial at Special Term 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from a judg construing a clause of the will of Charles F. ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Petry, deceased, reading as follows: "A one Court in the First Judicial Department (180 undivided one-half part of said portion of my App. Div. 691, 168 N. Y. Supp. 214), entered estate so held in trust, I give, devise and be- December 26, 1917, unanimously affirming a queath unto the issue of my deceased brother, judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a John Petry, absolutely and forever"-the ques- verdict in an action to recover for the death tion in controversy being the scope of the of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been ocword "issue," whether it included only the chil-casioned through the negligence of defendant, dren of John Petry, or all his descendants, and whether it included descendants born after the death of testator and before the death of the life tenant. The courts below held that by the use of the word "issue," the testator intended to give that portion of his estate to the children and grandchildren of his broher per capita. Eli J. Blair and George W. Field, both of New York City, for appellants. John A. Hardiman, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, without costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. appellant, who was employed to repair a steam boiler in the basement of a hotel building in New York City. The jury found that the repairs were negligently made, so that when the boiler was subjected to steam pressure it gave way, causing the injury to plaintiff's intestate from which he died. James B. Henney, of New York City, for appellant. Saul Bernstein and Marcus Schnitzer, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. RAMAPO MOUNTAINS WATER, POWER ROSENTHAL et al., Appellants, v. LIGHT, & SERVICE CO., Inc., Appellant, v. SIED- Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York, LER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals Oct. 14, 1919.) (Court of Appeals Oct. 14, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment enof New York, Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal, by per- tered January 17, 1919, upon an order of the mission, from a judgment of the Appellate Di- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in vision of the Supreme Court in the Second Ju- the First Judicial Department (185 App. Div. dicial Department (186 App. Div. 963, 173 N. 702, 173 N. Y. Supp. 743), which reversed an Y. Supp. 920), entered January 3, 1919, which order of Special Term overruling a demurrer unanimously affirmed a judgment of Special to the complaint, sustained such demurrer and Term dismissing the petition of the appellant directed a dismissal of the complaint, which alherein in condemnation proceedings to acquire leged an agreement by defendant to cause and certain lands in the town of Ramapo, Rock-procure the incorporation under the laws of the land county, for water supply purposes on the ground that the defendant commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park had previously acquired title to certain of the lands sought to be taken by the Ramapo Mountains Water, Power & Service Company, Incorporated, which were necessary to its project, and that the said company could not acquire lands so taken by the commissioners. R. E. Digney and John M. Digney, both of White Plains, for ap state of Connecticut of a corporation to be called the Monroe Clothes Shop Company, of which the defendant was to be an incorporator, director and stockholder, and also to procure the execution by said corporation after its organization of a certain contract or agreement with plaintiff, and the execution of a written guaranty by the defendant and his wife of the performance of the contract by the corporation. The complaint further alleged that the corporation was (125 N.E.) formed as agreed; that the defendant became [ of subways shall be paid out of the proceeds an incorporator and a director and stockholder, of the sale of the corporate stock of the city and ever since its incorporation has been in of New York, or has the board of estimate active charge and management of said corpora- and apportionment an apportionment an election from which tion, and its business; and that the defendant source to authorize payment of such expenses? had failed, neglected, omitted and refused to (3) Do the provisions of subway contract No. cause and procure said corporation to execute 3 express the determination by the Public and deliver the agreement or contract with Service Commission for the First District, plaintiffs, and had failed and refused to exe- which is provided for in section 10 of the cute and deliver the guaranty by defendant and Rapid Transit Act, as added by chapter 226 his wife. The defendant, in support of his de-of the Laws of 1912, as to the part of the murrer to the complaint upon the ground that commission's expeness to be included in the it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, claimed that the contract was void as against public policy because it was an agreement which tended to hamper and control the functions of corporate officers, and that the proposed contract, if executed by the corporation, would be unenforceable for indefiniteness and lack of mutuality. W. Bennett Marx, of New York City, for appellants. Thomas J. Kavanagh and Herman B. Goodstein, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, ROTTENBERG, Appellant, v. ENGLANDER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York, Dec. 2, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (185 App. Div. 1, 172 N. Y. Supp. 641), entered November 22, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to strike the above-entitled action from the Special Term calendar and granted said motion. David W. Kahn, of New York City, for appellant. Louis Kunen and Oscar Englander, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. cost of construction of the railroad to be built (7) SCHIEFFELIN v. HYLAN et al. (Court of Appeals of New York, Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (188 App. Div. 192, 176 N. Y. Supp. 809), entered June 6, 1919, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for the continuance of an injunction pendente lite in a taxpayer's action. The following questions were certified: Has the board of estimate and apportionment POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, of the city of New York power to authorize the issuance of corporate stock of the city of New JJ., concur. HOGAN, J., absent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. First question certified answered in negative. Third, fourth, and seventh questions answered in affirmative. Fifth question answered in negative. The Public Service Commission has made no sufficient requisition. Second and sixth questions not answered. "(1) HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO, and ANDREWS, SCHIFF, Respondent, v. SCHEUER et al., York to the amount of $4,500,000, under the resolution of February 7, 1919, and to apply the proceeds thereof as provided by said resolution? (2) Does the Rapid Transit Act, as Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York, amended by chapter 226 of the Laws of 1912, require that such part of the expenses of the Public Service Commission as are included in the cost of the construction of the dual system Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (188 App. Div. 944, 175 N. Y. Supp. 920), en |