Tbe defendant in New York

1958Definitely tbe proof is not “ clear and strong ” nor is it pointing “logically to defendant’s guilt and excluding to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis.” (People v. Taddio, 292 N. Y. 488, 489 , supra; People v. Leyra, 1 N Y 2d 199, supra.) Tbe defendant also contends that certain remarks of tbe District Attorney, both in bis opening and in bis summation, were sufficiently prejudicial to constitute reversible error.

1948This court held to tbe contrary.” [See 298 N. Y. 601 .]

1948(McCullen, Bills of Particulars, § 207, p. 228.) This is particularly so where, as here, the order directing the service of the bill of particulars contains a provision “ that in the event the plaintiff is unable to furnish the particulars of any of the items ordered, he shall so state under oath and with respect to such particulars shall furnish such items in a supplemental Bill of Particulars to be served within ten (10) days after the completion of the examina tion before trial of tbe defendants directed to be beld by order * * * dated February 24, 1948.” (Cf. Breyer v. Bloch, 205 App. Div.

1948(McCullen, Bills of Particulars, § 207, p. 228.) This is particularly so where, as here, the order directing the service of the bill of particulars contains a provision “ that in the event the plaintiff is unable to furnish the particulars of any of the items ordered, he shall so state under oath and with respect to such particulars shall furnish such items in a supplemental Bill of Particulars to be served within ten (10) days after the completion of the examina tion before trial of tbe defendants directed to be beld by order * * * dated February 24, 1948.” (Cf. Breyer v. Bloch, 205 App. Div.

1944“ Questions under tbe constitution of tbe United States were presented and necessarily passed upon. “ Tbe defendant Rudish contended that tbe admission of tbe confession of bis co-defendant Malinski in evidence against Malinski was a denial to tbe defendant Rudish of due process under tbe Fourteenth Amendment to tbe constitution of tbe United States. “ Tbe defendant Malinski contended that tbe admission’ in evidence of bis alleged confession and bis identification of tbe ‘ murder car ’ and bis description of tbe events at tbe scene of tbe murder violated bis rights under tbe Fourteenth Amendme

1901Tbe proceeding is in court before a judicial officer and whatever a taxpayer can ask as a matter of constitutional right, it is tbe duty of tbe surrogate to grant.” And again at page 324'.: “ So, in all of these modes we think there is sufficient provision for notice and bearing for all parties interested in tbe tax, and we have no doubt that tbe act secures to every taxpayer due process of law, so far as it. is applicable to cases of taxation.” Likewise in Matter of Estate of Wolfe, 137 N. Y. 205, at 213 , it is stated: “ Tbe doctrine of notice is one which finds application when it is sought

1900Brick v. Brick, 66 N. Y. 144 .

1898The recent case of Elias v. Scbw'eyer, 13 App. Div. 336 ,. seems effectively to sustain the claim of tbe executors.

1894In Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y. 21 , Church, Ch.

1888The only remaining exception to be considered is that in regard to the question of corroboration; and in view of tbe decision of tbe Court of Appeals in tbe case of tbe People v. Jaehne ( 103 N. Y., 182 ), this question does not seem to be open for discussion.

1888(Perkins v. Mitchell, 31 Barb., 467 ; Thorn v. Blanchard, 5 Johns., 508 ; Van Wyck v. Aspinwall, 17 N. Y., 190 ; Cook v. Hill, 3 Sandf., 349 .) A careful examination of the testimony shows plainly that the defendant delivered no copies of the pamphlet in question to any person except the governor, and there was therefore no proof of any wrongful publication of the libel.

1888(Perkins v. Mitchell, 31 Barb., 467 ; Thorn v. Blanchard, 5 Johns., 508 ; Van Wyck v. Aspinwall, 17 N. Y., 190 ; Cook v. Hill, 3 Sandf., 349 .) A careful examination of the testimony shows plainly that the defendant delivered no copies of the pamphlet in question to any person except the governor, and there was therefore no proof of any wrongful publication of the libel.

1888Co. v. Smith, 39 Hun, 332 , 337; Messeck v. Board of Sup. of Columbia Co., 50 Barb., 190 .) Tbe motion for new trial should be denied, and judgment ordered, for tbe defendant, with costs.

1887(Sisson v. Conger, 1 T. & C., 564; Cudney v. Cudney, 68 N. Y., 148 ; Eighmy v. People, 79 id., 546, 558; Mark v. McGlynn, 88 id., 374; Sanford v. Ellithorp, 95 N. Y., 54 .) Tbe doctrine of tbe Waterman case is that tbe declarations of tbe testator are not competent evidence in support of revocation of a will unless they accompany some act in that respect, but are competent as bearing upon bis mental condition as of the time of making bis will, when pertinent for that purpose.

1887(Sisson v. Conger, 1 T. & C., 564; Cudney v. Cudney, 68 N. Y., 148 ; Eighmy v. People, 79 id., 546, 558; Mark v. McGlynn, 88 id., 374; Sanford v. Ellithorp, 95 N. Y., 54 .) Tbe doctrine of tbe Waterman case is that tbe declarations of tbe testator are not competent evidence in support of revocation of a will unless they accompany some act in that respect, but are competent as bearing upon bis mental condition as of the time of making bis will, when pertinent for that purpose.

1887(Matter, etc., of Haxtun, 102 N. Y., 157 .) There is no fair opportunity appearing to conclude that tbe petition was dismissed for want of proofs in support of tbe allegations of tbe petition.

1887Johnson v. Crofoot ( 53 Barb. 574 ; S. C., 37 How., 59 ); Steffin v. Steffin (4 N. Y.

1887And such was tbe view of tbe court in Jackson v. Kniffen ( 2 Johns., 31 ).

1887And such was tbe view of tbe court in Jackson v. Kniffen ( 2 Johns., 31 ).

1886(Martin v. Black, 9 Paige, 641 .) And tbe accuracy of this principle was fully recognized and sanctioned in Woodruff v. Erie Railway ( 93 N. Y., 609 ).

1886Co., 87 id., 25 .) Tbe defendant’s counsel took exception to tbe refusal of tbe court to charge tbe jury, that if they should find “ that the plaintiff was in tbe act of unlawfully boarding a caboose when in motion, then tbe plaintiff was in tbe act of committing a crime, and if the plaintiff did not receive bis injury directly from tbe persons in the caboose, but from the plaintiff’s want of care in alighting from the caboose, then tbe plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and cannot recover for injury to his limb.” Tbe plaintiff unlawfully boarded tbe train while in motion, and in

1886(Martin v. Black, 9 Paige, 641 .) And tbe accuracy of this principle was fully recognized and sanctioned in Woodruff v. Erie Railway ( 93 N. Y., 609 ).

1886Ev., § 390; Hobart v. Hobart, 62 N. Y., 80 -83.) They bad no interest in tbe event of tbe controversy in a legal sense.

1885He must also be an officer de jure. [People v. Nostrand, 46 N. Y., 375 ; People v. Hopson, 1 Den., 579 .) Tbe inquiry is, did Nevins then have such title to tbe office as gave him a right to act as overseer of tbe poor ?

1885And in support of such contention cites Seymour v. Davis ( 2 Sandf., 239 ), and Aldrich v. Pyatt ( 64 Barb., 391 ).

1885And in support of such contention cites Seymour v. Davis ( 2 Sandf., 239 ), and Aldrich v. Pyatt ( 64 Barb., 391 ).

1884(Stacy v. Graham, 4 Kern., 492; Howard v. France, 43 N. Y., 593 .) Tbe test of tbe necessity for a demand is wbetber it was then and there the legal duty of the husband to pay this money to his wife.

1880(Orr's Case, 2 Abb., 457 ; Goodall v. Demarest, 2 Hilt., 534 ; Irwin v. Chambers, 40 Superior Ct., 432.) The order appealed from should be affirmed with $10 costs, and disbursements of the appeal.

1879(Carter v. Hobbs, 12 Mich., 52 .) It may sometimes be difficult to draw a fine between cases where tbe person is, or is not, in respect to tbe transaction in question, an inn-keeper.

1878(In re Josephine, 39 N. Y., 19 ; Vose v. Cockroft, 44 N. Y., 415 .) But admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to contracts relating to a vessel wholly engaged in tbe internal commerce of a State, and no maritime lien or claim can be founded on such contracts, and tbe courts of tbe United States are wholly without jurisdiction in such eases.

1878(In re Josephine, 39 N. Y., 19 ; Vose v. Cockroft, 44 N. Y., 415 .) But admiralty jurisdiction does not extend to contracts relating to a vessel wholly engaged in tbe internal commerce of a State, and no maritime lien or claim can be founded on such contracts, and tbe courts of tbe United States are wholly without jurisdiction in such eases.

1878(Emmons et al. v. Wheeler et al., 3 Hun, 545 ; S. C. more fully in 5 Sup. Ct. Rp., by Thompson & Cook, 618; Crawford v. Collons, 45 Barb., 269 .) Tbe defendants insist that the law is unconstitutional and void, as attempting to confer on State courts jurisdiction of subject-matters of admiralty jurisdiction, in regard to which, jurisdiction is vested exclusively in tbe courts of tbe United States.