DOBBS v. WEST JERSEY & S. R. CO. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. June 20, 1910.) Error to Supreme Court. Ac tion by James C. Dobbs against the West Jersey & Seashore Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. For prior report, see 73 Atl. 232. Gaskill & Gaskill, for plaintiff in error. Wilson & Carr, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court.

McDEVITT v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. June, 1910.) Error to Supreme Court. Action by Charles McDevitt against the Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City. A judgment of the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff (77 N. J. Law, 375, 71 Atl. 1121), and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Merritt Lane, for plaintiff in error. John Milton, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.

TOWN OF KEARNY et al. v. MAYOR AND

ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY et

al.

(Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. June 20, 1910.) Error to Supreme Court. Certiorari by the Town of Kearny and others to review the resolution whereby it was agreed to supply to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for 25 years all the water it desired to purchase. Resolution sustained by the Supreme Court (73 Atl. 110), and the Town of Kearny and others bring error. Affirmed. Robert H. McCarter, Edward Kenny, and Gilbert Collins, for plaintiffs in error. James B. Vredenburgh, Albert C. Wall, and Warren Dixon, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Swayze in the Supreme Court. We reserve, however, any expression of view upon the question whether Jersey City was, within the meaning of the act (P. L. 1897, p. 232), the owner of waterworks. To that question the Supreme Court gave a negative answer. We find it un

LAKE et al. v. WEAVER et al. (Court of Chancery of New Jersey. June 23, 1910.) Suit by Frank Lake and others against Josephine T. Weaver and others. Heard on cross-bills, answers thereto, replications, and proofs in open court. Decree advised. See, also, 75 Atl. 906. J. J. Crandall, for complainants. Melosh & Morten and Gilbert Collins, for defendants.

GARRISON, V. C. The right of the complainants to affirmative relief having been denied, and the bill having been dismissed in accordance with the directions of the Court of Erhaving directed this court to proceed to hear rors and Appeals (74 Atl. 451), and that court the issues raised by the cross-bills, they will now be disposed of. Dealing first with the cross bill of Josephine T. Weaver, I find that she is entitled to a decree against the complainants thereon, by which decree it will be determined that she has the right to hold the deed in question as a mortgage for the sums of money which it may be found that she had advanced to her son, Theodore S. Weaver, the grantor in the deed. In her answer she sets out, in the fourteenth paragraph thereof, that she had an accounting with her son for the moneys that she had advanced him, and that, as a result thereof, he conveyed this property to her; and in the crossbill she reaffirms this position, and claims that in any accounting to the complainants for the moneys which she now holds as trustee as aforesaid she is entitled to charge against the complainants all moneys advanced by her to the said Theodore S. Weaver as aforesaid. In both the answer and the cross-bill she sets up that this conveyance to her for moneys advanced by her to Theodore was for the benefit of her daughter and Theodore's sister, Ella Etta. I do not find that this is sustained by the proofs. The facts have been fully set forth by me in previous opinions, which are reported. While Josephine T. Weaver does not in her cross-bill pray that the deed in question may be estab fished by this court, she avers the facts above referred to by me, and charges that she is entitled to hold the deed for the repayment of these moneys to her, and has a prayer for general relief of the nature to which she may be entitled. The relief to which I find that she is entitled is to have this deed established in equity, to be held by her as if it were a mortgage. The particular facts which lead me to this conclusion, and the amount for which I find she may hold the same, are set forth in a previous opinion by me, which will be found reported in 70 Atl. 81. I shall, therefore, upon the cross-bill of Josephine T. Weaver, advise a decree in accordance with those views. With respect to the cross-bill of Ella Etta Smith and husband, I entitled to a decree as against the complainants, find, as I have above stated, that they are not since I do not find that the deed in question Josephine T. Weaver for the benefit of Ella was, by the proofs, shown to have been given to Etta Smith, which is the contention of their cross-bill. The cross-bill of these last-named defendants is also against Josephine T. Weaver, their codefendant, and I find that the latter has agreed to permit this cross-bill to be taken as

confessed as against her. The defendants Ella Etta Smith and her husband will therefore be entitled to whatever relief they should have bill against her, as to which I will hear counsel as against Josephine T. Weaver upon their crossat the time of settling the final decree.

(Su

COMMONWEALTH v. SHUMAKER. preme Court of Pennsylvania. March 7, 1910.) Appeal from Superior Court. James M. Shumaker was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the State, and on affirmance by the Superior Court (40 Pa. Super. Ct. 547) he appeals. Af