tion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, tral & Hudson River Railroad Company and also, 163 App. Div. 850, 147 N. Y. Supp. 1112; another. No opinion. Judgment and orders 152 N. Y. Supp. 1112. unanimously affirmed, without costs. FRANK, Respondent, v. ROWLAND & GARBARINI, Respondent, v. MOISANT SHAFTO, Inc., et al., Appellants. (Supreme INTERNATIONAL AVIATORS, Appellant. Court, Appellate Division, First Department. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De April 16, 1915.) Action by Adam Frank against partment. January 22, 1915.) Action by Luii Rowland & Shafto, Incorporated, and others. FRENCH, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 9, 1915.) Action by Ida L. French against the City of New Rochelle. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. FREY, Respondent, v. E. REGENSBURG & SONS, Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 9, 1915.) Action by Isidor Frey against E. Regensburg & Sons. E. L. Mooney, of New York City, for appellants. J. M. Kroskauer, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. Garbarini against the Moisant International Aviators. W. K. Van Meter, of New York City. for appellant. B. F. Schreiber, of New Y City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. V. GARDNER, Respondent, CENTRAL PARK, N. & E. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Su preme Court, Appellate Division, First Departe ment. April 23, 1915.) Action by Faxtor E Gardner against the Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company. C. Melien, of New York City, for appellant. J. F. Mcintyre, of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afirm ed, with costs. Order tiled. MCLAUGHLIN and SCOTT, JJ., dissent, on the ground that the evidence of negligence ca the part of the defendant was not sufficient to justify submission of the case to the jury. GARDNER, Respondent, v. ELMIRA, C. & W. RY., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellare Division, Third Department. May 5, 1915 Action by John Gardner against the Elmira. Corning & Waverly Railway. No opinis. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. In re GARVIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 23, 1915 In the matter of Michael J. Garvin. PER CURIAM. In order to review the order appealed from, it is necessary that all of the ballots that were marked as exhibits and were passed upon in the order appealed from shoul be submitted to the court. GAVRILUTZ v. SAVAGE (two cases), (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart ment. March 19, 1915.) Action by Rebeccа Gavrilutz against Joseph K. Savage. No epi Orders filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 808. FRUEAUFF v. MOORE. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April ion. Motions denied, with $10 costs. 1, 1915.) Action by Chas. A. Frueauff against George Moore. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1116. FULLER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 19, 1915.) Action by Laura Fuller, as administratrix, etc., against the City of New York. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse ments. GALVIN v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 5, 1915.) Action by Jeremiah Galvin against the New York Cen GEBERT v. GEBERT et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 19, 1915.) Action by Anna N. Gebert against Charles Gebert and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disburse ments. GEELAN v. BAHR et al. (No. 7130.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart ment. April 23, 1915.) Appeal from Trial Term, New York County. Action by John Gee lan against Henry D. Bahr and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant Bahr appeals. Affirmed. Stephen P. Anderton, of New York 813. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1113. y, for appellant. Louis Steckler, of New | graph Co., 161 App. Div. 781, 146 N. Y. Supp. rk City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order afned, with costs. Order filed. CLAUGHLIN, J. (dissenting). I think that court erred in refusing to charge the jury Lat, if the jury find that this accident hapned entirely by reason of the fact that the --hand horse shied and forced the wagon over inst the car, then under the issues presented this case their verdict must be for the defendBahr." I therefore dissent, and vote to erse the judgment and order appealed from, d for a new trial as to the defendant Bahr. SCOTT, J., concurs. GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Aplant, v. DIEHL, Respondent. (Supreme urt, Appellate Division, First Department. arch 26, 1915.) Action by the German-AmerIn Coffee Company against Clarence A. Diehl. S. Paine, for appellant. W. Ferguson, of ew York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 ts and disbursements, on De Raismes v. U. Lithograph Co., 161 App. Div. 781, 146 N. Supp. 813. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. Supp. 1113. INGRAHAM, P. J., and SCOTT, J., disnt, on the dissenting opinion in that case. GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO. v. IEHL. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, irst Department. April 16, 1915.) Action by e German-American Coffee Company against arence A. Diehl. No opinion. Motion grant1; question certified as stated in order. Orr filed. See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1113. V. GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Rebondent, DIEHL, Appellant. (Supreme ourt, Appellate Division, First Department. pril 23, 1915.) Action by the German-Ameriin Coffee Company against Clarence A. Diehl. . Ferguson, of New York City, for appellant. . S. Paine, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order (in 86 Misc. Rep. 17, 149 N. Y. Supp. 413) affirmed, with $10 sts and disbursements, on the opinion of age, J., at Special Term, with leave to the fendant to withdraw the demurrer and to aswer, on payment of costs in this court and the court below. Order filed. See, also, 152 . Y. Supp. 1113. GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Apellant, v. O'NEIL, Respondent. (Supreme ourt, Appellate Division, First Department. larch 26, 1915.) Action by the German-Ameran Coffee Company against John O'Neil. E. Paine, for appellant. G. W. Harper, Jr., of ew York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm1, with costs, on De Raismes v. U. S. Litho INGRAHAM, P. J., and SCOTT, J., dissent, on dissenting opinion in that case. GERMAN-AMERICAN COFFEE CO., Respondent, v. O'NEIL, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 23, 1915.) Action by the German-American Coffee Company against John O'Neil. G. W. Harper, Jr., of New York City, for appellant. E. S. Paine, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Page, J., at Special Term, in German-American Coffee Company v. Diehl, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and to answer, on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. Order filed. See, also, 152 N. Y. Supp. 1113. GLOVER, Appellant, v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 9, 1915.) Action by Laura Glover, as administratrix, against the National Bank of Commerce. G. A. Honnecker, of New York City, for appellant. J. Quinn, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. See Glover v. Nat. Bank of Commerce, 156 App. Div. 247, 141 N. Y. Supp. 409. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1118. GOELDNER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1915.) Action by Ernest B. Goeldner against the New York Telephone Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless the plaintiff will stipulate to reduce the verdict to $370, and if In re GRADE CROSSING COM'RS OF GOLDNER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK of Buffalo for the appointment of commissur TELEPHONE CO., Appellant. (Supreme In re GOODMAN. (Supreme Court, Appel- GORTIKOV, Respondent, v. GORTIKOV, GOTTFRIED v. GRIFFENHAGEN. (Su- GOULD, Respondent, v. GOULD, Appellant. GRACE, Appellant, v. TOWN OF NORTH Appellate Division, Second Department. March Y. Supp. 122. In re GRADE CROSSING COM'RS OF ers of appraisal to ascertain the compensaten GRAF v. MACKAY. (No. 7108.) (Supreme PER CURIAM. The order appealed from is GRAFTON, Respondent, v. BALL, Appellant. GREEN, Respondent, v. STEINBERG, AP GRECO et al. v. BECKER et al. (Supreme GREENBERG, Appellant, v. GOLDBERG. HAAKENSON, Appellant, v. ADAM REINHARDT & BROS., Respondents, et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depart New York City, for appellant. N. S. Goetz, New York City, for respondent. No opinion. der affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursents, with leave to plaintiff to amend on payment. April 9, 1915.) Action by Daniel Haaknt of costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Supp. 1088. GREENBERG, Appellant, v. GOLDBERG & REENBERG, Inc., Respondent. (Supreme urt, Appellate Division, First Department. arch 12, 1915.) Action by Abraham Greeneg against Goldberg & Greenberg, Incorporat H. R. Elias, of New York City, for appelat. E. Fixman, of New York City, for reOndent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with 1 costs and disbursements, with leave to intiff to amend on payment of costs. Order ed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1088. In re GREENWOOD. (Supreme Court, Aplate Division, Second Department. March 5, 15.) In the matter of William Greenwood, attorney. No opinion. Motion granted. GRIFENHAGEN et al., Respondents, v. HILDEN & HANCOCK, Appellant. (Sueme Court, Appellate Division, First Departent. April 23, 1915.) Action by Max S. ifenhagen, as Sheriff, etc., and others, against hilden & Hancock. A. Massey, of New York ty, for appellant. L. J. Wolff, of Brooklyn, - respondents. No opinion. Judgment and Her affirmed, with costs. Order filed. In re GRIFFIN. (Supreme Court, Appellate vision. First Department. April 1, 1915.) the matter of Francis H. Griffin. No opinRespondent disbarred. Settle order on 1. tice. GUIRIZINSKI, Appellant, v. AMERICAN ADIATOR CO., Respondent. (Supreme urt, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. arch 26, 1915.) Action by Bernhardt Guiriiski against the American Radiator Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with sts. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1120. LAMBERT and MERRELL, JJ., dissent. enson against Adam Reinhardt & Bros., impleaded with others. H. C. Smyth, of New York City, for appellant. E. P. Mowton, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed. LAUGHLIN, J., dissents. HAGARTY, Respondent, v. ΜOΥΚΑ et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 1, 1915.) Асtion by Helen Josephine Hagarty against John Moyka and another. PER CURIAM. Without expressing an opinion as to whether the complaint states a cause of action, we are of opinion that the answer puts in issue the allegations of the complaint, and it cannot be regarded as frivolous. The order is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. HAGMAYER v. NOVELTY STAMP CO. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division. First Department. April 30, 1915.) Action by Catherine Hagmayer against the Novelty Stamp Company. No opinion. Application demed, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1004. HALSTED, Appellant, v. SIMMONS, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. March 26, 1915.) Action by Florence Halsted against Julia G. Simmons. M. L. Towns, of New York City, for appellant. W. W. Foster, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to amend on payment of costs. Order filed. See, also, 151 N. Y. Supp. 1120. HAMER, Appellant, v. NASSAU ELECTRIC R. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. March 12, 1915.) Action by Emily V. Hamer against the Nassau Electric Railroad Company. No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. GUTTA PERCHA & RUBBER MFG. CO., pellant, v. HOLMAN, Respondent. (Sueme Court, Appellate Division, First DepartInt. April 30, 1915.) Action by the Gutta rcha & Rubber Manufacturing Company In re HAMMOND. (Supreme Court, Appelainst Charles J. Holman, as treasurer, etc. late Division, First Department. April 30, 1915.) In the matter of James B. Hammond, deceased. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 163 App. Div. 877, 147 N. Y. Supp. 884. Pierce, of New York City, for appellant. W. Fisher, for respondent. No opinion. Judgent affirmed, with costs. Order filed. See, 30, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1088. 7. W. MARTIN & BRO., Appellant, v. HELLHOOS, Respondent. (Supreme Court, opellate Division, First Department. April 1915.) Action by G. W. Martin & Bro. ainst Elizabeth Shellhoos. F. Taylor, of ew York City, for appellant. P. Cantline, of wburgh, for respondent. No opinion. Orr reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, d motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. HANSON, Respondent, v. HANSON et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 18, 1915.) Action by Aimee L. Hanson against Henrietta Reutti Hanson and others, as committee of the person and property of said Walter Lathrop Hanson, an incompetent person. PER CURIAM. Order (in 88 Misc. Rep 244, 151 N. Y. Supp. 861) reversed, without ecutrix, etc., of Humphrey L. Plant, deceased, to certain real estate in the town of Milfor costs, and place of trial changed to Columbia county, with costs to appellants to abide event. HOWARD, J., dissents. HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES CO., Appellant, v. 119TH ST. REALTY CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. May 7, 1915.) Асtion by Harbison-Walker Refractories Company against the 119th Street Realty Company. F. M. Avery, of New York City, for appellant. S. T. Stern, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. HARDIN et al., Respondents, v. ROBINSON, Appellant. (No. 7158.) (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 16, 1915.) Appeal from Special Term, New York County. Action by John R. Hardin and others, as trustees, etc., against George R. Robinson. From an order continuing an injunetion during the pendency of the action, defendant appeals. Reversed. Chester A. Jayne, of New York City, for appellant. Elbridge L. Adams, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. There is no case made upon these papers for the issuance or continuance of an injunction pendente lite. The order appealed from is therefore reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. HARGRAVES, Respondent, v. WICKWIRE STEEL CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department. March 26, 1915.) Action by Susan Hargraves, as administratrix, etc., against the Wickwire Steel Company. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal (in 151 N. Y. Supp. 1120) to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. HARLEY, Respondent, v. PLANT et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 23, 1915.) Action by James Harley against Hannah E. Plant, ex HART, Appellant, v. FULLER, Respondent. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third i partment. May 5, 1915.) Action by Natalie A. Hart, as administratrix, etc., of Palmer A Hart, deceased, against Bernice L. Fuller. N opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. HART v. HOPWOOD. (Supreme Court. Appellate Division, First Department. April 20 1915.) Action by Louis C. Hart against Ever ard B. Hopwood. No opinion. Application de nied, with $10 costs. Order signed. See, alse, 151 N. Y. Supp. 871. HARTMANN v. ARMSTRONG. (No. 7100 (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First De partment. April 1, 1915.) Appeal from Spect Term, New York County. Action by Edward A. X. Hartmann against Paul Armstrong From an order denying a motion to vacate an 1 order for the examination of a witness befute trial, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed L'helan Beale, of New York City, for appellant Geo. W. Files, of New York City, for respond ent. PER CURIAM. The order appealed from is modified, by restricting the examination to m ters concerning the receipt and contents of the letter specified in the affidavit of the plaintiffs attorney, and by striking out the provision for the production of such letter. As so modified. the order is affirmed, without costs. HARTWELL, Respondent, v. FARRELL, AP pellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 18, 1915.) Acti by William L. Hartwell against Jerome J. Fur rell. No opinion. Order atfirmed, without custs HARTWICK POWER CO., Respondent, v. MIX, Appellant. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department. May 5, 1925 In the matter of the application of the Hartwick Power Company relative to acquiring title Otsego County, as against Edith Wilber Mix. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. and another. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HARMON, Respondent, v. PRENTICE __et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Di vision, First Department. March 12, 1915.) Action by Margaretta T. Harmon against Henry L. Prentice and another. H. S. Sayers, of New York City, for appellants. C. C. Clark, of Brooklyn, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed. HARRIS v. TED SNYDER CO. et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. April 9, 1915.) Action by Charles K. Harris against the Ted Snyder Company and others. H. C. Smyth, of New York City, for appellants. A. H. Rosenfeld, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed. See, also, 163 App. Div. 956, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1119. HATCH, Appellant, v. LAKE SHORE & M S. RY. CO., Respondent. (Supreme Court, A pellate Division, Fourth Department. March 26, 1915.) Action by Cora May Hatch, as al ministratrix, etc., against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company. PER CURIAM. Judgment and order affirm ed, with costs. See, also, 159 App. Div. 145 N. Y. Supp. 781. KRUSE, P. J., and LAMBERT, J., dissent. HAUPTMAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EDISON CO., Appellant. (Supreme Court. Ap pellate Division, First Department. April 1915.) Action by Mayer Hauptman, as administrator, etc., against the New York Edison Company. T. H. Beardsley, of New York City. for appellant. J. F. McIntyre, of New York City, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment ! |