Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Emerson M. Willis for appellants.

William Townsend for respondent.

Per Curiam. However clear our judgment may be on the legal question involved on this appeal we think that the order of the Appellate Division in its present form is not the subject of review by us. This view is not predicated on the decision of this court in People ex rel. N. Y. Society, etc., v. Gilmore (88 N. Y. 626), because since that decision the Code of Criminal Procedure (§ 519) has been amended so as to authorize appeals to this court from a final determination affecting a substantial right of defendant, but because there is a question of fact in the case. To render a review by this court effective the order of the Appellate Division should show on its face that the order of the trial court was reversed solely on the law.

The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed unless the appellants within thirty days obtain from the Appellate Division a modification of its order, so as to show that the order of the trial court was reversed solely on the law, and in case of such modification being made the appeal may be again submitted to this court without further argument, unless the parties otherwise elect.

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

In the Matter of the Application of HENRY S. Goodspeed, Respondent, to Review a Determination of the Board of Elections of the City of New York.

JOHN W. TUMBRIDGE, Appellant.

Matter of Goodspeed (Tumbridge), 134 App. Div. 945, affirmed. (Argued October 27, 1909; decided October 27, 1909.)

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 25, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term

reversing a determination of the board of elections of the

city of New York.

George E. Josephs for appellant.

No one for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ. Absent: GRAY, J.

In the Matter of the Application of LINDON BATES, JR., et al., Respondents, to Review a Determination of the Board of Elections of the City of New York.

JOSEPH D. KAVANAGH et al., Appellants.

Matter of Bates (Kavanagh), 134 App. Div. 376, affirmed. (Argued October 27, 1909; decided October 27, 1909.)

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 25, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term reversing a determination of the board of elections of the city of New York.

George E. Josephs for appellants.

No one for respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ. Absent: GRAY, J.

In the Matter of the Application of ROBERT F. DOWNING, Respondent, to Review a Determination of the Board of Elections of the City of New York.

WILLIAM T. MAHAN, Appellant.

Matter of Downing (Mahan), 134 App. Div. 945, affirmed. (Argued October 27, 1909; decided October 27, 1909.)

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

October 25, 1909, which affirmed an order of Special Term reversing a determination of the board of elections of the city of New York.

George E. Josephs for appellant.

No one for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ. Absent: Gray, J.

In the Matter of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. WILLIAM O. BADGER, JR., Appellant, v. John T. DOOLING et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Defendants.

MICHAEL DITORE, Respondent.

People ex rel. Badger v. Dooling, 134 App. Div. 946, reversed. · (Argued October 27, 1909; decided October 27, 1909.)

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 25, 1909, which reversed an order of Special Term reversing a decision of the defendants which struck the name of the relator as a candidate for the office of justice of the Municipal Court of the city of New York from the Republican column on the official ballot.

Robert Stewart and Wendell P. Barker for appellant.

John J. Fitzgerald and William S. Butler for respondent.

Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur CULLEN, Ch. J., VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT. HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ. Absent: GRAY, J.

In the Matter of THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ALEXANDER S. DRESCHER, Respondent, v. JOHN T. DOOLING et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

Matter of Drescher v. Dooling, 134 App. Div. 945, affirmed. (Argued October 27, 1909; decided October 27, 1909.)

APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 25, 1909, which reversed an order of Special Term confirming the action of the board of elections of the city of New York in sustaining objections to the independent nomination of the relator for the office of alderman in the sixty-fifth aldermanic district of the city of New York.

Reuben L. Haskell for appellants.

Samuel A. Telsey for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: CULLEN, Ch. J., VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ. Absent: GRAY, J.

WILLIAM BROWN, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Brown v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 126 App. Div. 240, affirmed. (Argued October 13, 1909; decided October 29, 1909.)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 20, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action by an employee to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through the master's negligence.

A. II. Cowie for appellant.

James E. Newell for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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

CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, Respondent, v. THE ETNA INDEMNITY COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

City of Middletown v. Etna Indemnity Co., 127 App. Div. 914, affirmed. (Submitted October 13, 1909; decided October 29, 1909.)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 11, 1908, 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 upon a surety bond.

Frank II. Finn for appellant.

Thomas Watts for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; there being no exception that presents the question of the allowance of interest on the penalty of the bond; no opinion.

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

PHILIP GRECO, Respondent, v. THE PRATT CHUCK COMPANY, Appellant.

Greco v. Pratt Chuck Co., 127 App. Div. 798, affirmed. (Argued October 13, 1909; decided October 29, 1909.)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 7, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

« AnteriorContinuar »