Page images
PDF
EPUB

New York City, for appellant. Robert S. John-
stone, of New York City, for the People.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
SCOTT, J., dissents.

LAUGHLIN, J. I dissent from the affirmance, and vote for reversal, and for the discharge of the defendant, on the authority of Thompson v. New Academy Theater Co. (decided March 13, 1912) 149 App. Div. 932, 134 N. Y. Supp. 1148, People ex rel. Cisco v. School Board, 161 N. Y. 598, 56 N. E. 81, 48 L. R. A. 113, and Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 Sup. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LUND, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Victor Lund. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MACE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. December 30, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Abram L. Mace. No opinion. Judgment of conviction affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against George Miller. (No. 1.) No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MILLER, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against George Miller. (No. 2.) No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MORAN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 3, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Charles F. Moran. C. F. Kingsley, of New York City, for appellant. R. S. Johnstone, of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. NAIMARK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 24, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Max Naimark.

PER CURIAM. Motion for resettlement denied. The decision in this case was made in the exercise of the discretionary power conferred upon the court by section 527 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a new trial may be granted when deemed to be required in the interests of justice. also, 139 N. Y. Supp. 418.

JENKS, P. J., not voting.

See,

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. NAWROCKI, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Adalbert Nawrocki. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PARISI, Appellant, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, January 31, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Frank Parisi, impleaded with others. L. O. Reilly, of Mount Olive, Ill., for appellant. G. Z. Medalie, of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. RIZZO, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against viction of the County Court of Kings County Donato Rizzo. No opinion. Judgment of conaffirmed by default.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROTHSTEIN, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding against the People of the State of New York against Aaron Rothstein. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

=

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SCHMIDT, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 10, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against John Schmidt. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings County affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SMITH, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. February 7, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Thomas F. Smith. W. Armstrong, of New York City, for appellant. L. Fabricant, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed. Order filed.

PEOPLE v. STEINKREUTZER. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Idisor Steinkreutzer. No opinion. Motion granted; time extended 30 days. Settle order on notice.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. STORCH, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York Motion No opinion. against Victor Storch. to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SWITSKY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sec

ond Department. January 17, 1913.) Proreeding by the People of the State of New York against Isidore Switsky. No opinion. Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings County affirmed by default.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. THOMAS, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 17, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against William Thomas. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TITELBAUM, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 22, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Philip Titelbaum. No opinion. Judgment of conviction and order affirmed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TORNEY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 24, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Alexander Torney. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TRUST CO. OF AMERICA, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. December 30, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against the Trust Company of America. No opinion. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave

to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer, upon payment of costs in the court below and in this court. See, also, 145 App. Div. 900, 129 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WARBLINSKY, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. December 6, 1912.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against David Warblinsky.

PER CURIAM. The practice on this appeal is determined by the case of People v. Vitusky (decided in the First Department on July 11, 1912) 138 N. Y. Supp. 1013. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, on condition that the appellant perfect his appeal, place the case upon the next calendar, and be ready for argument when the case is moved or reached.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILSON, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 3, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against William Wilson. M. Trice, of New York City, for appellant. G. Z. Medalie, of New York City, for the People. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. MCVEY v. O'LOUGHLIN, Register. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 24, 1913.) Pro

[blocks in formation]

PEOPLE ex rel. NUTTING, Appellant, v. MAXWELL et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 31, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of well and others. D. R. O'Brien, of New York William W. Nutting, against William H. MaxCity, for appellant. C. McIntyre, of New York firmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. OrCity, for respondents. No opinion. Order afder filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. SIMON et al., Respondents, Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. v. BRADLEY, et al., Appellants. (Supreme January 22, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of the Terminal Station Commission of the city William Simon and others, as and constituting of Buffalo, against John H. Bradley and others. Aldermen of the City of Buffalo, and others. as Aldermen, and as constituting the Board of No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on the Commission of City of Buffalo, 152 App. Div. authority of Hanrahan v. Terminal Station 349, 136 N. Y. Supp. 1001.

PEOPLE ex rel. SIMON, Appellant, v. SIMON et al., Respondents. (Supreme Court,

Appellate Division, First Department. January, G. W. Pilcer against Hurtig & Seamon. No
31, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the opinion. Motion for stay denied, with $10
State of New York, on the relation of Yancu costs. Order filed. See, also, 139 N. Y. Supp.
Simon, against Floretta Simon and others. M. 1140.
S. Yochelson, of New York City, for appellant.
N. Frank, of New York City, for respondents.
No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs
and disbursements. Order filed.

PEOPLE ex rel. SMITH v. WARDEN OF CITY PRISON et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 17, 1913.) Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Habeas corpus, on the relation of Laura Smith, against the Warden of the City Prison and others. From an order sustaining the writ and discharging the relator from custody, the Warden appeals. Reversed, writ dismissed, and relator remanded. Stanley L. Richter, of New York City, for appellant. Henry A. Friedman, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The evidence before the magistrate was sufficient to justify him in holding the relator. and for that reason the order appealed from is reversed, the writ dismissed, and the relator remanded.

PEOPLE ex rel. WHITE v. PURDY et al., Tax Com'rs. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 24, 1913.) Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Josiah J. White, against Lawson Purdy and others, as Commissioners of Taxes, etc. No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.

PERLMAN v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 17, 1913.) Action by Morris Perlman against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 78 Misc. Rep. 168, 137 N. Y. Supp. 917.

PERRINGTON, Appellant, V. LUDIN REALTY CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 31, 1913.) Action by Frank Perrington against the Ludin Realty Company. A. Lichtig, of New York City, for appellant. W. C. Low, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.

PILCER v. HURTIG & SEAMON. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 31, 1913.) Action by Harry G. W. Pilcer against Hurtig & Seamon. No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

Ac

POKRESS et al., Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS BONDING & INS. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 31, 1913.) tion by Herbert Pokress and others against the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company. M. L. Heidenheimer, of New York City, for appellants. W. D. Williams, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted to the extent indicated in the order. Order filed.

POLLITZ v. JEFFERY et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 17, 1913.) Action by James Poilitz against Edward T. Jeffery and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.

POLLITZ, Respondent, v. WABASH R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 31, 1913) Action by James Pollitz against the Wabash Railroad Company and others. R. Taggart, Pierce & Greer, and G. W. Murray, all of New York City, for appellants. J. A. Hodge, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

POLLITZ v. WABASH R. CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 17, 1913.) Action by James Pollitz against the Wabash Railroad Company and others. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 152 App. Div. 884, 136 N. Y. Supp. 1145, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

POST et al. v. THOMAS. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 17, 1913.) Action by Edwin M. Post and another against Edward R. Thomas. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 139 N. Y. Supp. 6.

PRESTON v. CUNEO et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. January 24, 1913.) Action by Henry L. Preston against Andrew Cuneo and others, in which Jacob Tuck, an attorney, appeals. No opinion Motion granted, without costs. See. also, 140 App. Div. 144, 124 N. Y. Supp. 1031.

PILCER v. HURTIG & SEAMON. (Su- PRESTON v. TUCK. (Supreme Court, Appreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-pellate Division, Second Department. January ment. January 31, 1913.) Action by Harry 24, 1913.) In the matter of Henry L. Preston

against Jacob Tuck, an attorney, etc. No opin- with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 138 ion. Motion granted, without costs. N. Y. Supp. 1139. 149 App. Div. 957, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

See, also,

PRIME, Appellant, v. PRIME, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. January 8, 1913) Action, by Julia H. Prime against Spencer G. Prime, 2d. No opinion. Order amended, so that in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth questions submitted to the jury the questions shall read "on or about the dates therein specified," and, as so amended, the order is affirmed, without costs. See, also, 150 App. Div. 897, 134 N. Y. Supp. 1144.

PRINCE, Respondent, v. CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. December 30, 1912.) Action by Cora A. Prince, as ancillary administratrix, etc., against the Central New England Company.

PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversed, on the ground that the damages are excessive, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the verdict to $15,000, in which case judgment is so modified, and, as modified, judgment and order unanimously affirmed, without costs. See, also, 147 App. Div. 486, 131 N. Y. Supp. 803.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

In re RANDAZZO et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. JanIn the matter of the applicauary 15, 1913.) tion of Frank Randazzo and another for the in the custody of the Children's Aid Society of restoration of the child, Lillian Randazzo, now Rochester, N. Y.

PER CURIAM. Order reversed, and motion denied, without costs. Held, that the temporary custody of the child should not have been awarded to the respondents pending the proceedings for the legal adoption of the child.

MCLENNAN, P. J., and ROBSON, J., dis

sent.

In re RANSOM. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. January 8, 1913.) In the matter of the judicial settlement of the accounts of Washington H. Ransom, as executor, etc., of Ruby F. Cooper, deceased. PER CURIAM. Decree affirmed, with costs. ROBSON and FOOTE, JJ., dissent.

RATHBONE, Respondent, v. T. BRIGGS & CO.. Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. December 30, 1912.) Action by James B. Rathbone against T. Briggs & Co. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

QUINN v. CATLIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January REARDON v. CITY OF NEW YORK. 17, 1913.) Action by John Quinn against (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First DeDonald C. Catlin. No opinion. Motion denied, partment. January 31, 1913.) Action by Jo

[blocks in formation]

REILLY v. SIMONSON. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 3, 1913.) Appeal from Trial Term, New York County. Action by Sarah Teresa Reilly against Albert Simonson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered. Theodore H. Lord, of New York City, for appellant. Nathan Marks, of Brooklyn, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment and order appealed from are reversed, and a new trial or dered, with costs to appellant to abide the event, on the ground that the evidence does not support the finding of the jury that the defendant was guilty of negligence.

SCOTT, J., dissents.

[blocks in formation]

the Greenwich Bank of the City of New York No opinion. Motion for reargument (138 N. Y. Supp. 432) granted, and case set down for Tuesday, January 28, 1913.

RIDGEWOOD NAT. BANK v. STALLO et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. January 31, 1913.) Action by the Ridgewood National Bank against Edmund K. Stallo and others. Rockwood & Haldane, of New York City, for appellants. W. S. Gordon, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to defendar's to withdraw demurrers and to answer, on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. Order filed.

RILEY, Respondent, v. RANSOM et al., Ap pellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Second Department. January 17, 1913.) AG tion by Elizabeth B. Riley against Eleanor M. Ransom and others. No opinion. Motion granted, without costs. See, also, 152 App. Div. 939, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1140.

ROCK, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. December 30, 1912.) Action by Andrew J. Rock against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company and another. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

KELLOGG, J., dissents.

[blocks in formation]

PER CURIAM. In this proceeding there was presented to the court the petition of one Joseph C. Robin, detailing certain facts in relation to a claim made by the firm of Gifford, Hobbs & Beard against a banking corporation known as the Northern Bank, then in charge of the Superintendent of Banks; the institution having failed. An examination of all of these papers fails to disclose any fact that would justify any proceedings against any of the respondents named, other than the firm of Gifford, Hobbs & Beard. As to the firm of Rollins & Rollins, we can see no fact alleged which would in the slightest degree reflect upon their professional character, and the proceedings, therefore, as against all of the respondents, except the firm of Gifford, Hobbs & Beard, are dismissed. As to the facts alleged in relation to the firm of Gifford, Hobbs & Beard, we think there is sufficient to justify a further investigation, and, without expressing an opinion that there are any facts stated

« PreviousContinue »