BERGER, Respondent, v. RUSSELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First BORST, Respondent, v. LYON, Appellant. Department, April 8, 1909.) Action by Ben- (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Dejamin Berger against Henry Russell. C. H.partment. May 5, 1909.) Action by Frank Stoddard, for appellant. M. S. Hyman, for re- Borst against James B. Lyon. No opinion. spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to with- with costs. draw demurrer and to answer on payment of costs. Order filed.

BERLIN CONST. CO., Appellant, v. WATERVLIET FOUNDRY & MACH. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by the Berlin Construction Company against the Watervliet Foundry & Machine Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

KELLOGG, J., dissents.

In re BEVERLY ROAD IN CITY OF NEW YORK. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) In the matter of the application of the city of New York relative to acquiring title for the purpose of opening Beverly Road from Bedford avenue to East Thirty-First street, in the TwentyNinth ward, Brooklyn.

BRANT, Appellant, v. SIEGER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Henry L. Brant against Philip C. Sieger.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, without costs, so as to amend the second notice of appeal by striking out as surplusage that part which appeals from the judgment, and by striking out the words thereof, "denying plaintiff's motion to vacate said judgment and for a new trial in this action," and inserting instead thereof, "denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate said judgment upon the exceptions taken on the trial, as contrary to the evidence or contrary to the law, or, in the alternative, modifying said judgment."

BRENNAN, Respondent, v. KENNEDY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Terence Brennan against Mary Kennedy. No opinion. Appeal dismissed by default, with

PER CURIAM. The moving party not thinking the motion of sufficient importance to sub-costs. mit a brief or a memorandum of authorities, and it not appearing on what sections of the charter or decisions he relies, the motion is denied. See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 208.

In re BISHOP. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) In the matter of the application of L. W. Bishop to lay out a highway in the town of Hempstead, Nassau county, N. Y., and the assessment of damages therefor. No opinion. Order of the County Court of Nassau county confirmed, and order settled.

BRENNEN v. FRANCISCO et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Margaret Brennen against Frederick Francisco and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

BRESLIN, Respondent, v. BORDEN'S CONDENSED MILK CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by Catherine Breslin, as administratrix, against the Borden's Condensed

Milk Company. G. C. Fox, for appellant. E.
V. Dernoot, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce verdict to $5,000, in which event, judgment, as so reduced, and order, affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.

BRIGHTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT CO. v. HAAS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 21, 1909.) Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by the Brighton Beach Development Company against Abraham Haas. From an order denying a motion for a bill of particulars, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. James W. McElhinney, for appellant. Epstein Bros. (Alfred Epstein, of counsel), for respondent.

CAMPBELL, Respondent, v. MONTCLAIR HOTEL CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Ap pellate Division, First Department. April 16, 1909.) Action by Frank C. Campbell against the Montclair Hotel Company. C. A. Brodek, for appellant. C. Goldzier, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

In re CANTON'S WILL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 8, 1909.) In the matter of the will of Susan M. Canton, deceased. No opinion. Decree affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

CAPLAN, Appellant, v. GUION et al., Re spondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Aetion by Alexander Caplan against Harry Guion and others. No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs.

PER CURIAM. The order appealed from should be reversed, and the motion granted, so far as to require the defendant to furnish a bill of particulars of the instances of sales or CAROGA LUMBER CO., Respondent, v. exposure of the articles, for which the defendant was to have an exclusive privilege of sell- FULTON et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, ing, which he will seek to prove on the trial, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5. but not to require the amount of such sales, 1909.) Action by the Caroga Lumber Company with $10 costs and disbursements to the ap-ion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. against James Y. Fulton and others. No opinpellant.

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO., Respondent, v. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company against the Brooklyn City Railroad Company. No opinion. Motion granted, with costs. See, also, 124 App. Div. 896, 109 N. Y. Supp. 31.

BROOKS v. E. M. BROWN PAPER CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by William H. Brooks against the E. M. Brown Paper Company. No opinion. Motion denied.

BURNHAM et al., Respondents, v. BURNHAM, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Elizabeth M. Burnham and another against Arthur W. Burnham. No opinion. Judgment (58 Misc. Rep. 385, 111 N. Y. Supp. 252) unanimously affirmed, with costs.

CAMINO Appellant, v. HAMILTON, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 30, 1909.) Action by Joseph Camino against William J. Hamilton. C. Bisberg, for appellant. R. Gillette, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order modified, so as to require the defendant, in addition to the terms imposed by the order, to pay $10 costs of motion, $30 trial fee, and the disbursements of the inquest and entry of judgment, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Settle order

CARSTAIRS, Respondent, v. TEGELER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate DiApril 23, 19093 vision, Second Department. Action by J. Haseltine Carstairs against John H. Tegeler and others. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

CASE, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Maude L. Case against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

CHAPIN, Respondent, v. RUNDELL, Ap pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Alphonso Chapin against John M. Rundell. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

CHAPMAN et al., Appellants, v. NATIONAL CITY BANK, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 30, 1909.) Action by Elverton R. ChapJ. D. Fearhake, for appellants. H. Barry, for man and others against the National City Bank. respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.

CHRISTOPHER, Appellant, v. FREED MAN et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 30, 1909.) Action by Eliza W. Christopher

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant perfect the appeal, place the cause on the calendar for the June term of this court, and be ready for argument when reached, in which case the motion is denied, without costs.

CORNELL, Respondent, V. INTERBOROUGH RAPID TRANSIT CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 8, 1909.) Action by Sophie B. Cornell, as administratrix, against the Interborough Rapid Transit Company. J. H. Adams, for appellant. A. J. Dittenhoefer, for respondent.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DRY DOCK, E. B. & B. R. CO., Appellant. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order revers(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De-ed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appartment. May 7, 1909.) Action by the City pellant to abide event unless plaintiff stipulates of New York against the Dry Dock, East to reduce verdict to $8,500, in which event, Broadway & Battery Railroad Company. J. P. judgment, as so modified, and order, affirmed, Cotton, Jr., for appellant. T. Farley, for re- without costs. Settle order on notice. spondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. FLATBUSH GAS CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the City of New York against the Flatbush Gas Company. No opinion. Judgment affirmed on argument, with costs.

CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the City of New York against the New York City Railway Company, impleaded. J. P. Cotton, Jr., for appellant. T. Farley, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, also, 116 N. Y. Supp. 765; Id. 939.

CLEM, Appellant, v. FAIRCHILD, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by James S. Clem against Alice L. Fairchild, as administratrix, etc. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. See, also, 127 App. Div. 261, 111 N. Y. Supp. 262.

CLUTE, Respondent, v. CLUTE et al., Ap-
pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by
Catherine Clute, as administratrix, etc., against
Mary B. Clute and others.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
CHESTER and SEWELL, JJ., dissent.

COLUMBIA PAPER BAG CO., Respondent, v. LENTIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by the Columbia Paper Bag Company against Louis L. Lentin. No opinion. Motion for stay denied, with $10 costs, and stay granted in the order to show cause vacated.

COMMERCIAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. PECK et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by the Commercial Trust Company of New York against Walter A. Peck and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.

MCLAUGHLIN, J., dissents, on the ground that the proof does not establish that defendant's negligence was the cause of the collision, and also on the ground that the court erred in admitting in evidence against defendant's objection and exception the American Mortality Tables.

CRIST, Appellant, v. HOFFMAN, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Arthur H. Crist against Henry Hoffman. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

CURTIS, Respondent, v. MAMMANO et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by Louis Curtis against Joe Mammano No opinion. Final order of the and others. Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

CURTIS, Respondent, v. POMEROY et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Adelbert B. Curtis against Whiting G. Pomeroy and others.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs against the defendant town. KELLOGG, J., dissents. SEWELL, J., not sitting.

DADY, Respondent, v. O'SULLIVAN, Appelond Department. May 7, 1909.) lant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, SecAction by Michael J. Dady against Michael O'Sullivan. No opinion.. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

DALY, Appellant, v. WELSH, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Eda Daly against Rachel Welsh. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

DEADY, Respondent, v. DEGNON-MCLEAN CONTRACTING CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by Edward Deady against the Degnon-McLean Contracting Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

tion by John Dougherty against Helen Froe lich, as executrix. L. B. Faber, for appellant. C. J. Earley, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

DEAN, Appellant, v. F. R. LONG CO., Re- | sion, First Department. May 7, 1909.) __ Aes spondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by Caspar W. Dean against the F. R. Long Company. H. H. Bowman, for appellant. N. Zabriskie, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

DEEGAN, Respondent, v. GUTTA PERCHA & RUBBER MFG. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Daniel Deegan against the Gutta Percha & Rubber Manufacturing Company. No opinion. Motion denied. See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 291.

DENT REALTY CO., Respondent, v. CHEL TON PARK REALTY CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. May 7, 1909.) Action by the Dent Realty Company against the Chelton Park Realty Company and another. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

DEVINE. Respondent, v. ALPHONS CUSTODIS CHIMNEY CONST. CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 8, 1909.) Action by Patrick Devine against the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company. J. C. Robinson, for appellant. O. N. Jacoby, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

CLARKE, J., dissenting. See, also, 126 App. Div. 7, 110 N. Y. Supp. 119.

DUNCAN, Respondent, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Lorenzo Duncan against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company and the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed on reargument, and new trial granted before the court, costs to abide the event, unless the plainwhich case the judgment, as so reduced, is aftiff consent to reduce the damages to $3,000, in firmed, without costs here. See, also, 127 App. Div. 252, 111 N. Y. Supp. 210.

DWYER, Appellant, v. SCUDDER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Third Department. May 5, 1909.) Action by Thomas H. Dwyer against Arthur Scudder. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

DIECKMAN, Respondent, v. LASAROVITZ, pellate Division, First Department. April 16 In re EAST 179TH ST. (Supreme Court, Ap Appellant. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, 1909.) In the matter of the opening of East Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by Louisa Dieckman against Sigmond Lasaro-179th street. No opinion. Order affirmed, with vitz. No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. Court affirmed, with costs.

DODD, Respondent, v. ANDERSON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1909.) Action by William P. Dodd against William J. Anderson, administrator, etc., of William H. Anderson, deceased.

PER CURIAM. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and question certified as follows: Does the complaint state a cause of action? See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 688.

BURR, J., taking no part.

EDGERLEY, Appellant, v. BLACKBURN Division, First Department. April 16, 199 et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Action by Oscar M. Edgerley against Samuel P. Blackburn and another. H. M. Hewson, for appellant. J. S. Ross, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., dissent.

ELECTRO-TINT ENGRAVING CO., Appellant, v. AMERICAN HANDKERCHIEF CO. Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 16, 1909.) Ac DONOVAN, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF against the American Handkerchief Company. tion by the Electro-Tint Engraving Company OWEGO, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1909.). C. Crowley, for appellant. M. G. Clarke, Action by Katherine Donovan against the vil- with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed. lage of Owego. No opinion. Judgment and See, also, 115 N. Y. Supp. 34. order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

DOUGHERTY, Respondent, v. FROELICH,

ELIAS, Respondent, v. MITCHELL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First