(125 N.E.)

chia and George P. Foulk, both of New York [ PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOJANOWSKI,
City, for respondents.
Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of
costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN,
CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and AN-
DREWS, JJ., concur.

the Supreme Court rendered February 15,
1919, at a Trial Term for the county of Erie,
upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the
crime of murder in the first degree. Percy S.
Lansdowne and Joseph S. Kaszuboswki, both
of Buffalo, for appellant. Guy B. Moore, of
Buffalo, for the People.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction
affirmed under provisions of section 542 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN,
HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE,
CRANE, and AN-
DREWS, JJ., concur.

NORTHERN WESTCHESTER LIGHTING
CO., Appellant, v. PRESIDENT AND TRUS-
TEES OF VILLAGE OF OSSINING, Re-
spondent. (Court of Appeals of New York.
Oct. 7, 1919.) Motion to dismiss an appeal
from an order of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Depart-
ment (179 App. Div. 135, 165 N. Y. Supp. 247),
entered June 25, 1917, reversing a judgment in
favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of
the court on trial at Special Term and grant-lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov.
ing a new trial. The motion was made upon
the ground that the Court of Appeals had no
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the revers-
al by the Appellate Division having been on
the facts. Thomas G. Barnes, of Ossining, for
the motion. Joseph A. Greene, of Ossining,
opposed.

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal
dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

O'ESAU, Respondent, v. E. W. BLISS CO.
et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New
York. Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal by permission,
from an order of the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial De-
partment (186 App. Div. 556, 174 N. Y. Supp.
739), entered March 20, 1919, unanimously af-

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CASSIDY, Appel-

18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the
Supreme Court rendered January 25, 1919, at
a Trial Term for the county of Bronx, upon
a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of
murder in the first degree. Louis Susman and
Samuel Goldstein, both of New York City, for
appellant. Francis Martin, Dist. Atty., of New
York City (Charles B. McLaughlin and Al-
bert Cohn, both of New York City, of coun-
sel), for the People.

PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction
affirmed.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN,
CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and AN-
DREWS, JJ., concur.

firming an award of the State Industrial Com-lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov.
PEOPLE, Respondent, v. COHEN, Appel-

John M. 18, 1919.)

PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument de-
nied. See 223 N. Y. 406, 119 N. E. 886.

mission made under the Workmen's Compensa-
tion Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67). John M.
O'Esau, the deceased herein, was employed
by the E. W. Bliss Company as a shell in-
spector, and on the 28th day of March, 1916,
was rolling shells along a bench and caught
his finger between two shells, causing a con-
tusion of the third finger of the right hand. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DEDRICK, Ap-
He continued working from the date of his in- pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.
jury until the 30th day of April, 1917, upon Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of
which date he was compelled to stop work, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
owing to the condition of his finger. He did in the Third Judicial Department (181 App.
not file a claim for compensation until June Div. 915, 170 N. Y. Supp. 713), entered May
6, 1917, which was more than one year from 14, 1918, unanimously affirming a judgment in
the date of his injury. On the 21st day of favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of
March, 1918, he died as a result of his in- the court at a Trial Term without a jury in
jury, and on the following day his widow filed an action under sections 1638 et seq. of the
a claim for compensation with the state indus- Code of Civil Procedure to determine the title
trial commission; and after a hearing an award to certain real property. Carl L. McMahon,
was duly made to her for death benefits under of Saratoga Springs, for appellant. Charles
the Compensation Law. Appellants contended D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (William T. Moore, of
that the widow was estopped from filing a claim Mechanicsville, of counsel), for the People.
for compensation by reason of the failure of PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with
her husband to file his claim within one year costs.
after the accident. William H. Foster, of Syr-
acuse, and James B. Henney, of New York
City, for appellants. Charles D. Newton, At-
ty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel),
for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.
CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and POUND,
JJ., concur. MCLAUGHLIN and ANDREWS,
JJ., dissent. HISCOCK, C. J., not voting.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN,
CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE,
CRANE, and AN-
DREWS, JJ., concur.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DE SOMMA, Ap-
pellant. (Court of Appeals of New York.
Oct. 24, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of
the Supreme Court rendered March 3, 1919,

(125 N.E.)

PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal dismissed, with costs and $10 costs of motion.

crime of conducting business under an assumed [ert S. Conklin, of New York City, of counsel), name in violation of section 440 of the Penal for the motion. Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40). Joseph Gans and C. Arthur Jensen, both of New York City, for appellants. Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, and John E. Ruston, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.

PEOPLE ex rel. FIDELITY & CASUALTY PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. CO. OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. JOSLIN, Mayor of Watervliet, et al., Respondents. HISCOCK, C. J., CHASE, CHASE, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and AN-1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appel(Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 21, DREWS, JJ., concur.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. TRINCAL, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 14, 1919.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (180 App. Div. 894, 167 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered October 26, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York convicting the the Penal Law (Consol. Laws, c. 40). The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the return. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Felix C. Benvenga, of New York City, of counsel), for the motion. PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal

defendant of a violation of section 1148 of

dismissed.

PEOPLE, Respondent, v. USEFOF, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered February 8, 1919, at a Trial Term for the county of Bronx, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Martin W. Littleton, John D. Lindsay, Louis Susman, and Samuel Goldstein, all of New York City, for appellant. Francis Martin, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Charles B. McLaughlin and Albert Cohn, both of New York City, of counsel), for the People.

late Division of the Supreme Court in the
Third Judicial Department (188 App. Div. 405,
177 N. Y. Supp. 42), entered August 26, 1919,

which reversed an order of Special Term
granting a motion for a peremptory writ of
mandamus to compel the defendants to pay
to relator a sum alleged to be due on a con-
to relator a
tract for the improvement of the water sys-
it was admitted, had been raised by taxation
tem of the city of Watervliet, which sum,
and was in the hands of the city chamberlain.
The Appellate Division held as matter of law
that mandamus would not lie for the reasons:
First, that the water board had adopted a
resolution charging the contractor with dam-
ages for delay in an amount greater than the
sum due and declaring said sum forfeited;
and, second, that the claim had not been au-
dited in accordance with the provisions of a
new city charter which went into effect after
relator's final estimate had been made and
delivered. Charles B. Sullivan, of Albany, and
Edwin A. Jones, of New York City, for ap-
pellant. Chester Wood, Corp. Counsel, of
Watervliet, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs.
HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO,
POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS,
JJ., concur. HOGAN, J., absent.

PEOPLE ex rel. IROQUOIS DOOR CO., Appellant, v. KNAPP et al., State Tax Commission, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal from an PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- order of the Appellate Division of the Sufirmed.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., concurs, under provisions of section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

PEOPLE, by PHILLIPS, State Supt. of Ins., v. UNITED STATES GRAND LODGE OF INDEPENDENT ORDER OF SONS OF BENJAMIN. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 7, 1919.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (187 App. Div. 890, 174 N. Y. Supp. 917), entered February 3, 1919, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing the state superintendent of insurance to take possession of the property and conduct the business of the United States Grand Lodge of the Independent Order of Sons of Benjamin. The motion was made upon the ground of failure to file the required undertaking and the return on appeal. Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (Rob

preme Court in the Third Judicial Department (186 App. Div. 172, 173 N. Y. Supp. 641), entered January 24, 1919, which confirmed a determination of the state tax commission refusing to credit the relator, on its franchise tax for the year ending November 1, 1918, with more than one-half of the local tax paid by it in the year 1917. John A. Van Arsdale, of Buffalo, for appellant. Charles D. Newton, Atty. Gen. (Claude T. Dawes, of Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

PEOPLE ex rel. TOWN OF HARMONY, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF STATE OF NEW YORK, SECOND DISTRICT, et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 14, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial

Department (187 App. Div. 962, 174 N. Y. [pellant. Montgomery Hare, of New York City, Supp. 917), entered March 4, 1919, which con- for respondents, Siedler et al. Joseph A. firmed, on certiorari, an order of the Public Warren and George A. Blauvelt, both of New Service Commission of the State of New York City, for respondents Palisades InterYork, Second District, denying an applica-state Park Com'rs. tion for an order directing the Erie Railroad Company to repair certain bridges over its right of way. Harlan L. Munson, of Westfield, for appellant. Marion B. Pierce, of New York City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CHASE and HOGAN, JJ., dissent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs..

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

RENO, Respondent, v. BULL et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York, Oct. 14, 1919.) Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs and necessary printing disbursements. See 226 N. Y. 546, 124 N. E. 144.

ALBERT

PETRY et al. v. LANGAN et al. (Court of Appeals of New York, Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (186 App. Div. ROSENFELD, Respondent, 738, 175 N. Y. Supp. 30), entered April 2, 1919, SMITH & SONS, Inc., Appellant, et al. which affirmed a judgment entered upon a de- (Court of Appeals of New York, Nov. 18, cision of the court on trial at Special Term 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from a judg construing a clause of the will of Charles F. ment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Petry, deceased, reading as follows: "A one Court in the First Judicial Department (180 undivided one-half part of said portion of my App. Div. 691, 168 N. Y. Supp. 214), entered estate so held in trust, I give, devise and be- December 26, 1917, unanimously affirming a queath unto the issue of my deceased brother, judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a John Petry, absolutely and forever"-the ques- verdict in an action to recover for the death tion in controversy being the scope of the of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been ocword "issue," whether it included only the chil-casioned through the negligence of defendant, dren of John Petry, or all his descendants, and whether it included descendants born after the death of testator and before the death of the life tenant. The courts below held that by the use of the word "issue," the testator intended to give that portion of his estate to the children and grandchildren of his broher per capita. Eli J. Blair and George W. Field, both of New York City, for appellants. John A. Hardiman, of New York City, for respondents. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, without costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

appellant, who was employed to repair a steam boiler in the basement of a hotel building in New York City. The jury found that the repairs were negligently made, so that when the boiler was subjected to steam pressure it gave way, causing the injury to plaintiff's intestate from which he died. James B. Henney, of New York City, for appellant. Saul Bernstein and Marcus Schnitzer, both of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

RAMAPO MOUNTAINS WATER, POWER ROSENTHAL et al., Appellants, v. LIGHT, & SERVICE CO., Inc., Appellant, v. SIED- Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York, LER et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals Oct. 14, 1919.) (Court of Appeals Oct. 14, 1919.) Appeal from a judgment enof New York, Nov. 18, 1919.) Appeal, by per- tered January 17, 1919, upon an order of the mission, from a judgment of the Appellate Di- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in vision of the Supreme Court in the Second Ju- the First Judicial Department (185 App. Div. dicial Department (186 App. Div. 963, 173 N. 702, 173 N. Y. Supp. 743), which reversed an Y. Supp. 920), entered January 3, 1919, which order of Special Term overruling a demurrer unanimously affirmed a judgment of Special to the complaint, sustained such demurrer and Term dismissing the petition of the appellant directed a dismissal of the complaint, which alherein in condemnation proceedings to acquire leged an agreement by defendant to cause and certain lands in the town of Ramapo, Rock-procure the incorporation under the laws of the land county, for water supply purposes on the ground that the defendant commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park had previously acquired title to certain of the lands sought to be taken by the Ramapo Mountains Water, Power & Service Company, Incorporated, which were necessary to its project, and that the said company could not acquire lands so taken by the commissioners. R. E. Digney and John M. Digney, both of White Plains, for ap

state of Connecticut of a corporation to be called the Monroe Clothes Shop Company, of which the defendant was to be an incorporator, director and stockholder, and also to procure the execution by said corporation after its organization of a certain contract or agreement with plaintiff, and the execution of a written guaranty by the defendant and his wife of the performance of the contract by the corporation. The complaint further alleged that the corporation was

(125 N.E.)

formed as agreed; that the defendant became [ of subways shall be paid out of the proceeds an incorporator and a director and stockholder, of the sale of the corporate stock of the city and ever since its incorporation has been in of New York, or has the board of estimate active charge and management of said corpora- and apportionment an apportionment an election from which tion, and its business; and that the defendant source to authorize payment of such expenses? had failed, neglected, omitted and refused to (3) Do the provisions of subway contract No. cause and procure said corporation to execute 3 express the determination by the Public and deliver the agreement or contract with Service Commission for the First District, plaintiffs, and had failed and refused to exe- which is provided for in section 10 of the cute and deliver the guaranty by defendant and Rapid Transit Act, as added by chapter 226 his wife. The defendant, in support of his de-of the Laws of 1912, as to the part of the murrer to the complaint upon the ground that commission's expeness to be included in the it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, claimed that the contract was void as against public policy because it was an agreement which tended to hamper and control the functions of corporate officers, and that the proposed contract, if executed by the corporation, would be unenforceable for indefiniteness and lack of mutuality. W. Bennett Marx, of New York City, for appellants. Thomas J. Kavanagh and Herman B. Goodstein, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with

costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN,
CARDOZO, POUND,
POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and
ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

ROTTENBERG, Appellant, v. ENGLANDER, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York, Dec. 2, 1919.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (185 App. Div. 1, 172 N. Y. Supp. 641), entered November 22, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to strike the above-entitled action from the Special Term calendar and granted said motion. David W. Kahn, of New York City, for appellant. Louis Kunen and Oscar Englander, both of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

cost of construction of the railroad to be built
under such contract? (4) Do the provisions
of subway contract No. 4 express the determi-
nation by the Public Service Commission for
the First District, which is provided for in sec-
tion 10 of the Rapid Transit Act, as added by
chapter 226 of the Laws of 1912, as to the
part of the commission's expenses to be in-
cluded in the cost of construction of the rail-
road to be built under such contract? (5) Has
the Public Service Commission made such a
requisition for, or determination of, the part
of its expenses to be included in the cost of
construction of the railroad under the Rapid
Transit Act provided for under subway con-
tract No. 3 or under subway contract No. 4,
so as to authorize the issue of corporate stock
of the city for such purpose under section 10
of the Rapid Transit Act, as amended? (6)
Where all the expenses of the Public Service
Commission have been paid from
bonds of the city of New York, may the board
of estimate and apportionment of said city, up-
on proper determination of the Public Service
Commission, that some part of such expenses
shall be included in subway construction cost,
authorize the city to issue its corporate stock
upon the basis of such expenses, and apply the
proceeds of such stock in part to redeem such
special revenue bonds, and in part to the gen-
eral fund for reduction of city taxation?
Upon the facts and in the circumstances dis-
closed by this record is the plaintiff entitled to
maintain a taxpayer's action to restrain the
defendants from carrying out the terms of the
resolution of February 7, 1919, which is the
subject of the present controversy?" William
P. Burr, Corp. Counsel, of New York City,
(John F. O'Brien and John Lehman, both of
New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Leonard M. Wallstein, of New York City, for
respondent.

(7)

SCHIEFFELIN v. HYLAN et al. (Court of Appeals of New York, Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (188 App. Div. 192, 176 N. Y. Supp. 809), entered June 6, 1919, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for the continuance of an injunction pendente lite in a taxpayer's action. The following questions were certified: Has the board of estimate and apportionment POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, of the city of New York power to authorize the issuance of corporate stock of the city of New JJ., concur. HOGAN, J., absent.

PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. First question certified answered in negative. Third, fourth, and seventh questions answered in affirmative. Fifth question answered in negative. The Public Service Commission has made no sufficient requisition. Second and sixth questions not answered.

"(1)

HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, CARDOZO, and ANDREWS,

SCHIFF, Respondent, v. SCHEUER et al.,

York to the amount of $4,500,000, under the resolution of February 7, 1919, and to apply the proceeds thereof as provided by said resolution? (2) Does the Rapid Transit Act, as Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York, amended by chapter 226 of the Laws of 1912, require that such part of the expenses of the Public Service Commission as are included in the cost of the construction of the dual system

Oct. 21, 1919.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (188 App. Div. 944, 175 N. Y. Supp. 920), en