the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding.

Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly, John P. Dunn, Thomas C. Blake and James R. Fitz Gerald of counsel), for appellant.

Melville Egleston and II. II. Brigham for New York Telephone Company, respondent.

Henry J. Hemmens and Charles I. Taylor for New York Edison Company, respondent.

John A. Garver for Northern Union Gas Company, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER and Hiscock, JJ.

FRANK GRIFFIN, Respondent, v. WILLIAM MCMAHON et al., Respondents, and MARTHA A. MALLORY, Appellant.

Reported below, 131 App. Div. 925.

(Argued October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

ION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 6, 1909, affirming a judg ment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action for partition of real property.

The motion was made upon the ground that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Frank J. Saxton and Thomas F. Rogers for motion.

Martha A. Mallory, appellant, in person, opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

HUGH MOORE, Respondent, v. EUGENE J. GRANT et al.,

Appellants.

Moore v. Grant, 131 App. Div. 916, appeal dismissed. (Argued October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 15, 1909,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 services.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment of the Appellate Division was not appealable of right to the Court of Appeals, and permission to appeal had not been obtained. William E. C. Mayer for motion.

Leophold Leo opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars cost of motion.

FRANK L. PERLEY, Appellant, v. MORNING TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondent.

Perley v. Morning Telegraph Co., 131 App. Div. 599, appeal dismissed. (Submitted October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a final judgment entered June 8, 1909, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint and sustained such demurrer in an action for libel.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment was not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals.

Ernest W. Marlow and Thomas W. Churchill for motion.

Franklin Bien opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.

MILTON GREENEBAUM, as Trustee, Respondent, v. FLEISCHMANN REALTY AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant.

Greenebaum v. Fleischmann Realty & C. Co., 133 App. Div. 945, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 19, 1909, 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 on a deficiency judgment.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment was not appealable of right to the Court of Appeals; that permission to appeal had not been obtained, and that in any event the exceptions were frivolous.

Samson Lachman and Theodore Baumeister for motion.

Daniel P. Hays and Edwin D. Hays opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.

MORNING TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

Reported below, 132 App. Div. 634.

(Submitted October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 8, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover payment for publication of certain election notices.

The motion was made upon the ground that the action was for services, the judgment of the Appellate Division unanimous, and, therefore, not appealable of right to the Court of Appeals, and that permission to appeal had not been obtained.

Ernest W. Marlow and Thomas W. Churchill for motion.

Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly and Terence Farley of counsel), opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

In the Matter of the Petition of the BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE VILLAGE OF WHITE PLAINS, Respondent, to Acquire Certain Real Property.

THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY WATER WORKS COMPANY et al., Appellants.

(Submitted October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

Motion for re-argument denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 195 N. Y. 502.)

EMANUEL POLITO et al., Constituting the Firm of POLITO BROTHERS, Respondents, v. GUIESSEPPE PITRIELLO et al., Appellants.

Appeal - filing of return.

The filing of a return to the Court of Appeals cannot be compelled until the appeal is fully perfected.

Reported below, 132 App. Div. 903.

(Submitted October 4, 1909; decided October 12, 1909.)

MOTION to restore to the calendar an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 23, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

Peter J. McGoldrick for motion.

K. C. McDonald and M. V. McDonald opposed.

Per Curiam. This is a motion to restore the appeal in this proceeding to the calendar, it having been dismissed under rule one for failure to file a return as therein required.

It appears that the justification of sureties executing the

undertaking on the appeal is still pending and undetermined in the Supreme Court.

The filing of a return cannot be compelled until the appeal is fully perfected.

The motion should be granted, without costs.

CULLEN, Ch. J., EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ., concur.

Motion granted.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. THOMAS KREKELER, Appellant, v. EDMOND J. BUTLER, as Commissioner of the Tenement House Department of the City of New York, Respondent.

People ex rel. Krekeler v. Butler, 129 App. Div. 910, affirmed. (Argued October 4, 1909; decided October 19, 1909.)

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 24, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to approve certain plans and specifications. Ira J. Ettinger and William Hauser for appellant.

Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly, John P. O'Brien and Samuel J. Parmenter of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of GERARD, J., at Special Term.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT VANN, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. THE LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF BUFFALO, Respondent.

People ex rel. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. City of Buffalo, 131 App. Div. 545, affirmed.

(Argued October 4, 1909; decided October 19, 1909.)

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered