PEOPLE ex rel. SPEIGHT, Respondent, v. COLER, City Comptroller, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 25, 1898.) Almet F. Jenks and William J. Carr, for appellant. Joseph A. Burr, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on the ground that it does not appear from the record that the position is a strictly confidential one, within the meaning of the statute. All concur. See 31 App. Div. 523, 52 N. Y. Supp. 197.

PEOPLE ex rel. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO., Appellant, v. ROBERTS, Comptroller, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. June 24, 1898.) Samuel Foster, for appellant. T. E. Hancock, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. See 30 App. Div. 78, 51 N. Y. Supp. 747. All concur, except GRAY and VANN, JJ., not sitting.

PEOPLE ex rel. WHITE, Respondent, BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF BUFFALO et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 11, 1898.) Motion to place on the calendar and advance an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division of the supreme court in the Fourth judicial_department, entered June 14, 1898 (31 App. Div. 438, 52 N. Y. Supp. 643), affirming an order of special term granting a peremptory writ of mandamus. The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal involved questions of public importance, and was entitled to speedy consideration. Seward A. Simons, for the motion. Albert Hessberg, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.

PEOPLE ex rel. YOUNG MEN'S ASS'N FOR MUTUAL IMPROVEMENT IN CITY OF ALBANY, Appellant, v. SAYLES et al., Assessors of City of Albany, Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 25, 1898.) William P. Rudd, for appellant. John A. Delehanty, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. 32 App. Div. 197, 53 N. Y. Supp. 67. All concur.

PORTER, Respondent, v. SWAN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 4, 1898.) William N. Dykman, for appellant. Daniel Cameron, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 14 Misc. Rep. 406, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1037.

PRINGLE, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Appellant. In re BIDDELL. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 11, 1898.) Motion to dismiss an appeal by certification from an order of the appellate division of the supreme court in the First judicial department, entered April 14, 1898 (27 App. Div. 144, 50 N. Y. Supp. 536), reversing an order of special term denying a motion to substitute James S. Biddell as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of James E. Pringle, deceased, as plaintiff herein, and granting the motion. This motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was not taken or perfected within the time prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. James E. Davis, for the motion. William J. Kelly, opposed. No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.

ion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. 8 App. Div. 223, 40 N. Y. Supp. 313. All concur.

TURROSHKE, Respondent, v. FRIEDERICH et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 22, 1898.) George F. Yeoman, for appellants. Norris Bull, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except GRAY, J., absent. See 2 App. Div. 616, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1150.

UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO., Appellant, v. SALMON et al., Respondents. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 25, 1898.) Oliver P. Buel, for appellant. J. B. M. Stephens, for respondents. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. 91 Hun, 535, 36 N. Y. Supp. 830. All concur, except O'BRIEN and HAIGHT, JJ., not voting.

VAN INGEN, Respondent, v. STAR CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 22, 1898.) John Notman, for appellant. Walter S. Logan, for respondent. No opinion. Judg. ment and order affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. 1 App. Div. 429, 37 N. Y. Supp. 114. All concur, except MARTIN, J., not sitting.

WILSON, Respondent, v. WEBBER et al., Appellants. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 22, 1898.) Edward C. Hart, for appellants. William H. Vicary, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered for plaintiff on the stipulation, with costs, on opinion below. 92 Hun, 466, 36 N. Y. Supp. 550. All concur.

WOOD, Respondent, v. THIRD AVE. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Nov. 22, 1898.) Eugene Treadwell and Henry L. Scheuerman, for appellant. Isaac M. Kapper, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, MARTIN, and VANN, JJ., concur. PARKER, C. J., and GRAY and O'BRIEN, JJ., dissent. See 91 Hun, 276, 36 N. Y. Supp. 253.

WYNNE, Respondent, v. ATLANTIC AVE. R. CO. OF BROOKLYN, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 4, 1898.) James R. Soley, for appellant. Charles J. Patterson, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur. See 14 Misc. Rep. 394, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1034.

ZIMMERMANN, Appellant, v. HEIL, Respondent. (Court of Appeals of New York. Oct. 4, 1898.) Edward B. Hill, for appellant. Henry L. Scheuerman and Herbert R. Limburger, for respondent. No opinion. Order and judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below. 86 Hun, 114, 33 N. Y. Supp. 391. All concur, except O'BRIEN, J., absent.

ILLINOIS VAL. & N. R. CO. v. PEOPLE. (Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 24, 1898.) Appeal from Lasalle county court; W. H. Johnson, Judge. Proceeding by the people against the Illinois Valley & Northern Railroad Company and others to enter a judgment for delinquent taxes. Defendant railroad company ap pealed. Reversed. Samuel Richolson, for appellant. Haskins & Panneck, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The questions involved in this case are the same as the questions involved in Greenwood v. Gmelich, 175 Ill. 526, 51 N. E.

565. The decision of this case is governed by the decision in that case. Accordingly, the judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in the case of Greenwood v. Gmelich, supra. Reversed and remanded.

PEOPLE ex rel. AKIN, Atty. Gen., MARTIN, City Collector. (Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 24, 1898.) Proceeding for mandamus, on the relation of Edward C. Akin, attorney general, against Joseph S. Martin, city collector. Writ awarded. Edward C. Akin, Atty. Gen., in pro. per. Tenney, McConnell, Coffeen & Harding, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. This is an original proceeding for mandamus by the plaintiff against the city collector of the city of Chicago to compel the city collector to obey the civil service act in the same respects as are set forth in the case of People v. Loeffler, 51 N. E. 785. The prayer of the petition here is the same as the prayer of the petition in the Loeffler Case, with the exception that the respondent there was the city clerk, and the respondent here is the city collector. The questions involved in this case are the same as the questions involved in the Loeffler Case, and the decision there disposes of the rights of the parties here. Accordingly, the mandamus is awarded against the city collector in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Writ awarded.

MARKLEY V. STUDABAKER et al.1 (Supreme Court of Indiana. Nov. 22, 1898.) Appeal from circuit court, Wells county; O. J. Lotz, Special Judge. Action between Henry C. Markley and George W. Studa baker and others. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former appeals. Affirmed. Mock & Sons, for appellant. Dailey, Simmons & Dailey, for appellees.

JORDAN, J. This is an action to enjoin the collection of an assessment of taxes for the construction of a public ditch. The same ditch proceedings and the same questions are involved as 1 Rehearing denied.

were in Studa baker v. Studabaker (No. 18,496, decided at this term) 51 N. E. 933; and, upon the authority of that decision, the judgment below ought to be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

SMITH et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF HUNTINGTON COUNTY.1 (Supreme Court of Indiana. Nov. 1, 1898.) Appeal from circuit court, Huntington county; Robert Lowry, Judge. Remonstrance by Edward Smith and others in proceedings for assessment instituted by the board of commissioners of Huntington county. Judgment for the commissioners, and remonstrators appeal. Affirmed. B. M. Cobb, for appellants. Whitelock & Cook, for appellee.

judgment of the Huntington circuit court, in JORDAN, J. This is an appeal from the a proceeding instituted by the appellee to obtain an additional assessment to meet a deficit in the cost arising out of the improvement of a certain highway, under sections 5091 and 5092, Rev. St. 1881 (sections 6855 and 6856, Rev. St. 1894; sections 5091 and 5092, Horner's Rev. St. 1897). There was a remonstrance filed by appellants, a trial by the court, and a special finding of facts, and conclusions of law thereon, in favor of appellee, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The same questions are involved in this case, and are presented in like manner, as in the appeal of Kline v. Board (No. 18,627, decided at this term) 51 N. E. 476; and, upon the authority of the decision in that cause, the judgment below must be, and is, affirmed.

TULEJA v. BEAUVAIS et al. (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Hampden. Oct. 21, 1898.) Appeal from superior court, Hampden county. Bill by Joseph Tuleja against Trefle Beauvais, Jr., and another, to restrain defendants from further maintaining a fence across a street in front of complainant's premises. From a decree granting complainant an injunction, defendants appeal. Modified. J. T. Moriarty and Tom Fitz Gibbon, for appellants. J. B. Carroll, W. H. McClintock, and J. F. Stapleton, Jr., for appellee.

HAMMOND, J. This case is before us upon an appeal from the decree of the superior court after a hearing. The evidence not being reported, the only question is whether the decree is justified by the record. Upon comparing the de cree with the record, we are of opinion that the second paragraph of the decree, to wit, that part after “Marie D. Beauvais," and before the paragraph relating to costs, is not justified by the The decree, record, and should be stricken out.

as thus modified, may stand. The defendants contend that, in any event, the decree is wrong, because the bill states the frontage of the Beauvais lot to be 274 feet, while the decree seems to fix it at 174 feet. But, the evidence not being reported, we cannot tell which is correct. Perhaps the error, if there be any, is merely clerical. If so, it can be corrected. Let the de cree be modified by the superior court in accordance with this opinion.

ALEXANDER et al. v. GROESHEN et al. (No. 5,065.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. 22, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Hamilton county. William G. Roberts and R. C. Taylor, for plaintiffs in error. Mallon, Coffey & Mallon, J. J. Glidden, Rob P. Hargitt, and Outcalt, Granger & Hunt, for defendants in error. opinion. Judgment affirmed.

1 Rehearing denied.

No

BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. (No. 5,109.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 3, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Monroe county. McCammon & Ketterer, for plaintiff in error. Mallory, Jeffers & Sears, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. On consideration thereof, it is ordered and adjudged, this court proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered, that the judgment of said court of common pleas in favor of the board of education of Washington township be modified by reducing it to the sum of $123, as of the date of said original judgment in the court of common pleas, and that said defendant in error recover that sum, with interest thereon from said date, and that each party pay half the costs in this court and in the circuit court.

BRICKER v. ELLIOTT. (No. 5,789.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 14, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Knox county. John Adams and J. B. Waight, for plaintiff in error. Charles H. Follett and Critchfield & Graham, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. On consideration thereof, the court finds that there is error therein apparent on the record, to the prejudice of plaintiff in error, in this, to wit: The circuit court found and adjudged that there was due the defendant in error from the plaintiff in error, as the proportionate share of Indiana Bricker in the insurance fund mentioned by the parties in their respective pleadings, the sum of $500, with interest from the 20th day of July, 1883, up to the first day of the term of said circuit court at which judgment was rendered, to wit, October 5, 1897; whereas said finding and judgment, in respect to said insurance fund, should have been that there was due the defendant in error from the plaintiff in error, as the distributive share of Indiana Bricker in said insurance fund, the onehalf only thereof less the premium paid, to wit, the sum of $357.50, with interest thereon from the 20th day of July, 1883, to the 5th day of October, 1897, amounting to the sum of $674.77, instead of $926.25, as found by the circuit court. And the court finds that there is no other error apparent on the record and proceedings in said case. The court finds that the judgment of said circuit court in favor of the defendant in error, and against the plaintiff in error, should have

been for $2,230.55, instead of $2,482.03; and this court, in proceeding, by consent of parties, to render the judgment that the circuit court should have rendered in said case, found, determined, considered, and adjudged that the defendant in error recover from the plaintiff in error the sum of $2,230.55, with interest thereon since the 5th day of October, 1897, and that the defendant in error recover from the plaintiff in error his costs in this case made in the court of common pleas and in the circuit court, taxed at $, and that plaintiff in error pay his own costs in said courts, and that each of said parties pay one-half the costs of this case in this court, taxed at $It is further ordered

that this case be remanded to the circuit court of Knox county, for execution. See 45 N. E. 1045.

BROWN et al. v. HULL. (No. 5,439.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 19, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Hancock county. John Poe, for plaintiffs in error. S. P. Harrison, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. See 48 N. E. 1110.

CANFIELD v. SWANK et al. (No. 5,244.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 24, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Hancock county. H. F. Burket and George H. Phelps, for plaintiff in error. John Poe, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

CARLIN. HOSLER, Treasurer. (No. 5.050.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 22, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Hancock county. Jason, Blackford & Byal, for plaintiff in error. Theodore Totten, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. It is argued and adjudged by this court that the judgment of said circuit court be, and the same is hereby, reversed, on the ground that the commissioners of Hancock county and of Seneca county, in joint session, had no jurisdiction to establish said ditch, which lies wholly in Hancock county, and upon the further ground that the county commissioners could not legally establish a ditch over the lands of said Maude Carlin, she being a minor, and could not legally make an assessment on her lands for such ditch without first assessing and paying to her compensation for the lands taken for such ditch; and for these reasons the petition and supplemental petition state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the injunction case, having been dismissed by the plaintiff, was not an adjudication of her rights. It is further ordered that this cause be, and the same is, remanded to the circuit court of Hancock county for further proceedings according to law. Judgment reversed.

CITY OF ALLIANCE et al. v. HARTZELL et al. (No. 5.028.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 22, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Stark county. J. W. Craine, for plaintiffs in error. Day, Lynch & Day, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

CITY OF CLEVELAND v. GORMAN. (No. 5,550.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 24, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Cuyahoga county. Miner G. Norton and Ford, Boyd & Crowl, for plaintiff in error. Kerruish, Chapman & Kerruish, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

CITY OF FINDLAY v. FINDLAY ST. RY. CO. (No. 5,760.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 19, 1898.) Error to circuit court. Hancock county. William F. Duncan, for plaintiff in er

ror. J. A. & E. V. Bope, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. MINSHALL, J., dissents.

CITY OF MANSFIELD v. MEWS. (No. 5,060.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 26, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Richland county. T. R. Robison, City Sol., and Seward & Bricker, for plaintiff in error. Bowers & Black and J. C. Laser, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

CLARK et al. v. ELLIOTT. (No. 5,078.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 24, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Licking county. J. B. Jones, for plaintiffs in error. Kibler & Kibler, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

CLEVELAND CITY RY. CO. v. MILITZER. (No. 5,629.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 26, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Cuyahoga county. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for plaintiff in error. Kerruish, Chapman & Kerruish, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. SPEAR, C. J., and SHAUCK and BURKETT, JJ., dissent.

COMMISSIONERS OF WOOD COUNTY v. COMMISSIONERS OF OTTAWA COUNTY. (No. 5,766.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 8, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Ottawa county. Parker & Fries and E. G. Love, for plaintiff in error. C. I. York and William Gordon, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed on the grounds stated in Board of Com'rs of Fulton Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Lucas Co., 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 563. MINSHALL, J., dissents.

DICE et al. v. DRAPER, Treasurer. (No. 5,206.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 3, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Scioto county. N. W. Evans and Duncan Livingstone, for plaintiffs in error. A. C. Woodrow, City Sol., and J. W. Bannon, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

DOTY v. SWING et al. (No. 5,071.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 29, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Hancock county. A. Blackford, R. J. Kibler, and John N. Doty, for plaintiff in error. Franklin T. Cahill, John E. Betts, Thomas Meehan, and E. T. Dunn, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed. BURKET, J., did not participate.

FARMERS' MUT. FIRE INS. CO. v. BACHMAN. (No. 5,048.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. April 26, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Darke county. Meeker & Gaskill and Allread & Teegarden, for plaintiff in error. Anderson & Bowman, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

FOEHL et al. v. WHITE. (No. 5,325.)_(Supreme Court of Ohio. June 21, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Tuscarawas county. John S. Graham and Welty & Albaugh, for plaintiffs in error. M. V. Ream and J. F. Wilkin, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

FREDERICK v. CITY OF COLUMBUS. (No. 5,102.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. June 21, 1898.) Error to circuit_court, Franklin county. J. T. Holmes, F. A. Davis, and Cyrus Huling, for plaintiff in error. Selwyn N. Owen, E. C. Irvine, and Charles J. Pretzman, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed on the authority of Frederick v. City of Columbus, 58 Ohio St. 538, 51 N. E. 35.

GARDNER v. STATE ex rel. PERIN, (No. 5,204.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 10, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Sandusky county. Richards & Heffner and M. B. Lemmon, for plaintiff in error. George Kinney and M. L. Shackelford, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed..

GILCHRIST v. STOCKING. (No. 5,221.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 10, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Cuyahoga county. Gilbert & Hills, for plaintiff in error. Kline, Carr, Tolles & Goff, for defendant in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

GINN v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS et al. (No. 5,045.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 22, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Logan county. West & West, for plaintiff in error. James A. Odor, Pros. Atty., and Howenstine, Huston & Miller, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

GINN v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS et al. (No. 5.046.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. March 22, 1898.) Error to circuit court, Logan county. West & West, for plaintiff in error. James A. Odor, Pros. Atty., and Howenstine, Huston & Miller, for defendants in error. No opinion. Judgment affirmed.

GIRARD FIRE & MARINE FIRE INS. CO. v. BOYLE. (No. 5,129.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. May 17, 1898.) Error to circuit court,