Philip Mahoney against Westinghouse, Church | to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to & Kerr, a corporation. reduce judgment as entered, including interest, PER CURIAM. Judgment of the Municipal costs, etc., to $2.164.60, in which event judg Court affirmed, with costs. BARTLETT and MILLER, JJ., dissent. MALDOON, Respondent, v. JEFFERSON POWER CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 3, 1905.) Action by Fred D. Maldoon against the Jefferson Power Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. WILLIAMS and STOVER, JJ., dissent. MALLORY, Respondent, v. DIMOCK, AP pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 28, 1905.) Action by David D. Mallory against Anthony W. Dimock. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversed on argument, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on account of error in the rulings of the trial court in permitting the opinion of the Appellate Division of the Third Department, containing statements of fact in another case injurious to the defendant, to be read to the jury in the course of he defendant's cross-examination. ment, as so modified, and order, affirmed, without costs. MARTIN V. CROSSLEY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 7, 1905.) Action by John Martin against Hannah L. Crossley. No opinion. Motion granted. INS. CO. OF NEWARK, N. J., Appellant. MARTINEZ, Respondent, v. FIREMEN'S (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 21, 1905.) Action by John P. Martinez against the Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark, N. J. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. MATOTT et al., Respondents, v. GONYO et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 3, 1905.) Action by William Matott, Napoleon Matott, and Robert Wiley against Isaac Gonyo and others. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. MAYER et al., Appellants, v. ROTHFUSS, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 7, 1905.) Action by Gerson Mayer and others against Oscar M. Rothfuss. B. Tuska, for appellants. J. P. Eustis, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment MAN, Appellant, v. SASLAVSKY, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 20, 1905.) Action by Wil-and order affirmed, with costs. iam Man against Nathan Saslavsky. G. B. Goodman, for appellant. A. H. Solotaroff, for espondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. MANHEIM et al. v. RATNER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 14, 1905.) Action by Jacob Manheim and others against Charles Ratner. No opinon. Motion denied, on payment of $20 costs. MARCH v. MARCH et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 5, 905.) Action by Egbert G. March, as execuor, against Seth B. March and others. W. B. Hornblower, for appellants. M. Williams, for espondent Kennedy. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with osts. VAN BRUNT, P. J., dissenting. MARQUETTE, Respondent, v. WATEROWN THERMOMETER CO., Appellant. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Deartment. May 3, 1905.) Action by Alice Marette against the Watertown Thermometer ompany. No opinion. Judgment and order firmed, with costs. MARRONI, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW MEEHAN, Respondent, v. ATLAS SAFE MOVING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 7, 1905.) Action by Mary L. Meehan, as administratrix, against the Atlas Safe Moving Company. H. C. Smyth, for appellant. G. G. Battle, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. INGRAHAM, J., dissents. MEGOWAN et al., Respondents, v. PETERSON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 28, 1905.) Action by James Megowan and William S. Goddard against Charles G. Peterson. No opinion. Motion denied. In re MEYER'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 7, 1905.) In the matter of John D. Meyer, deceased. No opinion. Motion denied. MILLER, Appellant, v. VAN BRUNT ST. & E. B. R. Co., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Samuel Miller against Van Brunt Street & Erie Basin Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order of the County Court of Kings county unanimously affirmed, with costs. MITCHELL, Respondent, v. MITCHELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 16, 1905.) Action by Sophia Mitchell against Fred Mitchell. and 127 New York State Reporter No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs. Appeal should be from the judgment, and not from the order. MOHR v. GEORGI. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Minnie Mohr against Otto H. Georgi. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. MORAN, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN TRANSIT CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 20, 1905.) Action by Peter J. Moran, as administrator, against the Manhattan Transit Company. G. S. Graham, for appellant. A. F. Clark, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce judgment as entered, including costs, etc., to the sum of $2,609.94, in which event judgment, as so modified, and order, affirmed, without costs. MORAN v. MANHATTAN TRANSIT CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Peter J. Moran against the Manhattan Transit Company. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. MORRISON et al., Respondents, v. YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 10, 1905.) Action by Solomon Morrison and another against Daniel York. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. WILLIAMS and HISCOCK, JJ., dissent. MOTT, Appellant, v. DE NISCO, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Emma L. B. Mott against Carmine De Nisco. No opinion. Reargument ordered, and case set down for June 7, 1905. MULLER v. MULLER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 20, 1905.) Action by Frank W. Muller against George J. Muller. No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs. MULLIGAN v. HARLAM. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Thomas F. Mulligan against Edward M. Harlam. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. MULLIN, Respondent, v. VAN DUZER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 28, 1905.) Action by Francis B. Mullin against Maria J. Van Duzer, individually and as executrix, etc. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. MURPHY, Appellant, v. BISHOP & BABCOCK CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 5, 1905.) Action by Margaret Murphy, as admin istratrix, against the Bishop & Babcock Conpany. G. W. Miller, for appellant. C. G. F. Wahle, for respondent. No opinion. Judg ment affirmed, with costs. MURRAY v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 14, 1905.). Action by George Murray against the Metropolitan Street Ra way Company. No opinion. Motion denied, on payment of $20 costs. In re MUSGRAVE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 20, 199 In the matter of Francis E. Musgrave. R. B Moffatt, for appellant. F. Bien, for appele No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. NAPOLETANO, Respondent, v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department April 21, 1905.) Action by Joseph Napoletans an infant, etc., against the Brooklyn Heights Railway Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment modified, by strik ing out the provision for an extra allowance, the ground of want of power in the court be low to grant the same, and, as modified, jud ment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. NATHAN v. METROPOLITAN ST. R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De partment. May 12, 1905.) Action by Arter J. Nathan against the Metropolitan Street Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion dr nied. NATIONAL FIRE INS. CO., Respondent. 1. HUGHES, Appellant. pellate Division, Second Department. May (Supreme Court, Ap 1905.) Action by the National Fire Insurance Company against William Hughes. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. NATIONAL REFINING CO. v. WATKINS partment. May 12, 1905.) Action by the N (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De tional Refining Company against Charles C Watkins, Jr. with $10 costs. No opinion. Motion granted E TAN STREET RY. CO.. Appellant. (Sup late Division, First Department. April 14 late Division, First Department. April 2 In re NEKARDA. (Supreme Court, Appel 1905.) In the matter of Francis J. Nekarda. No opinion. Reference ordered. NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRE INS. CO., Respondent, v. HUGHES, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by the New Hampshire Fire Insurance Company against William Hughes. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. NEW YORK EXPANDED METAL CO., Respondent, v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 7, 1905.) Action by the New York Expanded Metal Company against the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. E. F. Clark, for appellant. I. C. Wait, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on authority of Bossert V. Fox, 89 App. Div. 7, 85 N. Y. Supp. 308. NORMAN, Appellant, v. LOOMIS-MANNING FILTER CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 21, 1905.) Action by F. Stout Norman against the Loomis-Manning Filter Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. NUNNALLY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK HERALD CO. et al., Appellants (two cases). Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 28, 1905.) Action by Florence Nunnally against the New York Herald Company and James G. Bennett. No opinion. Motion granted, without costs. O'BRIEN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 21, 1905.) Action by Sarah O'Brien against the city of New York. No opinion. Judgment and order nanimously affirmed, with costs. In the matter of the application of Fred D. O'KEEFE, Appellant, v. HINSDALE, Re- PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, J., dissents, on the ground that upon the evidence a question of fact was presented as to the item of $110 paid by plaintiff for real estate, which should have been submitted to the jury. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Respondent, v. ETNA LIFE INS. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May against the Etna Life Insurance Company. 3, 1905.) Action by Margaret O'Shaughnessy No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. OTIS, Respondent, v. PORTER, Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 3, 1905.) Action pleaded with Alonzo McDonald and another. No by George A. Otis against John B. Porter, imopinion. new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant Judgment and order reversed, and to abide event. Held, that the verdict was contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. Division, Third Department. May 3, 1905.) PARSONS, Respondent, v. PARSONS, ApFourth Department. May 10, 1905.) Action pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, by Amelia C. Parsons against Archelaus H. Parsons. the amount of alimony allowed to $5 per week, PER CURIAM. Order modified, by reducing which latter sum is allowed upon condition O'BRIEN v. D. S. MORGAN & CO. (Su- that the plaintiff, within 10 days after service -reme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth De- of a copy of this order, together with notice -artment. May 10, 1905.) Action by Michael of entry thereof, file a stipulation consenting . O'Brien against D. S. Morgan & Co. No nunc pro tune to an order of reference in this Said order is further modified, by pinion. Motion for reargument denied, with action. 10 costs and disbursements. Motion for leave striking out the provision for an order of refappeal to the Court of Appeals denied. erence herein, unless within 10 days after service of a copy of this order, together with noO'CONNOR, Respondent, V. VIRGINIA tice of entry thereof, the defendant and the ASSENGER & POWER CO. et al. Appel- file stipulations consenting nunc pro tune to an co-respondents who have answered make and nts. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, hird Department. May 10, 1905.) Action by order of reference herein. As so modified, the homas O'Connor against the Virginia Pas-order appealed from is affirmed, without costs enger & Power Company, the Atlantic Develop- of this appeal to either party; but, in case ent Company, Frank Jay Gould, and Helen the plaintiff fails to file such stipulation, the iller Gould. No opinion. Motion denied, and order appealed from is amended by striking out se not permitted to be moved by the respond- the allowance of all sums to her by way of t before Wednesday, May 17, 1905. alimony. In re OILER. (Supreme Court, Appellate ivision, Second Department. May 12, 1905.) WILLIAMS and STOVER, JJ., dissent, on the ground that the court had no power to refer the case, because no motion for a refer and 127 New York State Reporter ence was made and no notice of intention to have a reference was given to the co-respondents; that there was no consent to the order directing the reference by either of the co-respondents, the plaintiff, or the defendant; and that all the parties have an absolute right to a trial by jury. WILLIAMS, J., also dissents, on the further ground that, under the circumstances of this litigation and of the former litigation between the parties, no allowance of alimony should be made, and that the amount allowed for expenses should not exceed $100. PATTERSON, Respondent, v. CITY OF ELMIRA, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 3, 1905.) Action by Abe Patterson, as administrator, etc., of Helen M. Patterson, against the city of Elmira. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. PAYNE CO., Respondent, v. HALL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 3, 1905.) Action by the Payne Company against Joseph P. Hall, No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. PEABODY, Respondent, v. ANTHONY & SCOVILL CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 20, 1905.) Action by Richard A. Peabody against the Anthony & Scovill Company. S. H. Evins, for appellant. P. G. Bartlett, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. PELL V. PELL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 12, 1905.) Action by Anna O. Pell against Duncan G. Pell. No opinion. Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOURNE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 5, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Frederick G. Bourne. W. W. Niles, for appellant. R. C. Taylor, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BRIGGS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 10, 1905.) Proceed ings by the people of the state of New York against Charles M. Briggs. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CREED, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. May 3, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Rose Creed. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. PEOPLE v. DUKE._ (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 20, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against William Duke. No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal. PEOPLE, Appellant, v. HALL, Respondent (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third De partment. May 3, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Benjamin E. Hall. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. PARKER, P. J., and SMITH, J., dissent. PEOPLE V. Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. HASBROUCK. (Supreme May 16, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Frederick His brouck. PER CURIAM. Motion, in so far as it asks that the papers specified in the order of the Special Term be printed upon this appea granted, unless within 30 days, upon proper application to the Special Term, the appellant procures the order below to be amended, so as to specify what proceedings in the action and before the referee were in fact used upon the motion at the Special Term, and amends and serves the printed record accordingly, in which case, motion denied. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HEIMAN, AF pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department. April 20, 1905.) Proceed ings by the people of the state of New York against Leo Heiman. E. A. Alexander, fe appellant. H. S. Gans, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE v. MARTINO. (Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department. May 2 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Frank Martino. No ope ion. Appeal dismissed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MOTOLA, Appel lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divisio First Department. April 20, 1905.) Procee ings by the people of the state of New York against Angelo Motola. M. Wechsler, for ap pellant. R. C. Taylor, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE v. TUDINO. (Supreme Court, AP 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state pellate Division, First Department. May 2 of New York against Frank Tudino. No opia ion. Appeal dismissed. PEOPLE, Respondents, v. VAN VLIET, AP pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Divis Second Department. May 12, 1905.) Proceed ings by the people of the state of New Yers against John B. Van Vliet. No opinion. Or der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. PEOPLE ex rel. AMM et al. v. BOARD OF RAILROAD COM'RS et al. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, Third Department. May 9, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of James Amm and others, against the board of railroad commissioners of the state of New York and others. No opinion. Motion denied. PEOPLE ex rel. CHILDS CO. v, MILLER, State Comptroller. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 9, 1905.) Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of the Childs Company, gainst Nathan L. Miller, as State Comptroller. No opinion. Motion denied. PEOPLE ex rel. COMMISSIONERS OF CHARITIES v. ABRAHAMS (two cases). Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Deartment. May 12, 1905.) Proceedings by the eople of the state of New York, on the relaion of the commissioners of charities, against athan Abrahams. No opinion. Motion deied, on payment of $10 costs. PEOPLE ex rel. COWLES v. BOARD OF UP'RS OF ALLEGANY COUNTY. (Sureme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Deartment. May 3, 1905.) Proceedings by the eople of the state of New York, on the relaon of Adolphus E. Cowles against the board of apervisors of Allegany county. PER CURIAM. Determination of the board f supervisors modified, so as to allow the aim of the relator at the sum of $290, with terest thereon from the 11th day of January, 04, and, as so modified, said determination is onfirmed, without costs to either party, on the inion of McLennan, P. J., in People ex rel. errick v. Same Defendants (decided herewith) 3 N. Y. Supp. 426. PEOPLE ex rel. FARCY & OPPENHEIM O., Respondent, v. WELLS et al., Tax om'rs, Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appelte Division, First Department. May 5, 005.) Appeal from Special Term. Certiorari 7 the people of the state of New York, on e relation of the Farcy & Oppenheim Comny, to review a determination of James L. ells and others, commissioners of taxes and sessments of the city of New York. From order reducing the assessment (87 N. Y. pp. 84), defendants appeal. Affirmed. George Coleman, for appellants. Frederic R. Court, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs, the opinion in People ex rel. Sherwin Wilms Co. v. Barker, 5 App. Div. 246, 39 N. Y. pp. 151. HATCH, J. (dissenting). I am unable to ree that the case of People ex rel. Sherwin lliams Co. v. Barker, 5 App. Div. 246, 39 Y. Supp. 151, is controlling of the quesms presented by this appeal. On the conry, I think the facts are in all essential rects the same as was presented to the court People ex rel. Durand Ruel v. Wells, 41 sc. Rep. 144, 83 N. Y. Supp. 936, affirmed this court on appeal 92 App. Div. 622, 87 Y. Supp. 1144. The distinction between t and the Sherwin Williams Case and the horities upon which it was based is clearly nted out by Mr. Justice Leventritt in his nion. The order reducing the assessment uld therefore be reversed, and the assessat as made confirmed. |