PER CURIAM. A judgment upon a verdict in this cause in favor of plaintiff in error was removed to this court, and reversed upon the ground that the evidence at the trial established the negligence of plaintiff in error, contributing to the injury for which he sought damages from defendant in error, and that a nonsuit should have been allowed. Railroad Co. v. Leary, 56 N. J. Law, 705, 29 Atl. 678. A venire de novo having been issued, the cause was again tried. The trial judge, being of opinion that the evidence adduced at that trial was substantially identical with that given at the former trial, and passed upon in this court, directed a nonsuit. His direction is the sole ground on which a reversal is urged. An examination of the bill of exceptions and the evidence contained therein has led a majority of the court to the conclusion that the trial judge was correct in his opinion, and rightly directed a nonsuit. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

DIXON and BOGERT, JJ., dissent.

MORRIS & E. R. CO. v. SPOTTISWOOD. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 20, 1899.) Error to supreme court. Action of ejectment by George Spottiswood against the Morris & Essex Railroad Company. Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted was allowed to defendant, and certified to the supreme court for its advisory opinion, pursuant to which opinion (40 Atl. 505), the circuit court discharged the rule, and entered judgment, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Flavell McGee, for plaintiff in error. Howard W. Hayes, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment of the circuit court brought here by this writ is founded on a verdict of a jury in an action of ejectment. After the verdict a rule to show cause why it should not be set aside was allowed to the defendant, reserving defendant's exceptions. The rule was certified to the supreme court for its advisory opinion. That court, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice DEPUE, reported in 61 N. J. Law, 322, 40 Atl. 505, advised the circuit court to discharge the rule. The circuit court discharged the rule, and entered judgment. Thereupon this writ was brought. The questions raised upon the exceptions are those which were discussed in the supreme court, and were there decided adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error. We are of opinion that those questions were correctly solved in the supreme court. For reasons given in the opinion of Mr. Justice DEPUE, the judgment will be affirmed.

ZIMMERMAN v. HALLINGER. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Nov. 20, 1899.) Appeal from court of chancery. Bill by Hiram G. Hallinger against Walter Zimmerman. From a decree for plaintiff (42 Atl. 726), defendant appeals. Affirmed. George A. Vroom, for appellant. George H. Peirce, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is confirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion of Vice Chancellor GREY.

ASHURST v. ATLANTIC COAST ELECTRIC RY. CO. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 23, 1899.) Action by Alice Ashurst against the Atlantic Coast Electric Railway Company. Rule to show cause discharged, and motion to change venue denied. Argued November term, 1899, before GARRISON and COLLINS, JJ. John P. Stockton, Jr., for plaintiff. Flavel McGee, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The evidence taken under the rule to show cause does not satisfy us that there is any special circumstance of difficulty to warrant a change of venue, as is required to that end by the settled practice of this court. Demarest v. Hurd, 46 N. J. Law, 471. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged, and the motion denied.

DEFFUR v. BRANDES. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 13, 1899.) Error to circuit court, Passaic county. Action between Peter Deffur and Julius Brandes. There was a judgment in favor of the latter, and the former brings error. Affirmed. Argued June term, 1899, before MAGIE, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, and LIPPINCOTT, JJ. Michael Dunn, for plaintiff in error. John W. Harding, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. No legal error has been discovered in this case, and the judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

FLEMING et al. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF JERSEY CITY et al. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Aug. 30, 1899.) Application by Dudley D. Fleming and others for a writ of certiorari to review a contract made by the city of Jersey City with Patrick H. Flynn. Application denied. Argued June term, 1899, before DEPUE, GUMMERE, and LUDLOW, JJ. McEwan & McEwan, for plaintiffs. McDermott, Corbin & Edwards, for defendants.

PER CURIAM. At the last February term of this court the above applicants sought to obtain a writ of certiorari to review the contract made by the city of Jersey City with Patrick H. Flynn for a municipal water supply. The reasons upon which their application was based were not such as to justify the allowance of the writ, and their application was, therefore, denied. 42 Atl. 845. They now renew that application on other grounds, which existed, however, at the time the writ was originally applied for. The public importance of the matter has led us to consider the merits of this application, without passing upon the propriety of the practice adopted; and the conclusion which we have reached is that the reasons presented afford no ground for the allowance of the writ. The application is denied.

HARRISON v. NORTH JERSEY ST. RY. CO. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 13, 1899.) Action by Susie F. Harrison against the North Jersey Street-Railway Company. Hearing on rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Rule made absolute, unless plaintiff consents to reduction of verdict. Argued June term, 1899, before MAGIE, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, and LIPPINCOTT, JJ. James A. Gordon, for plaintiff. A. O. Garretson, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The verdict is attacked solely upon the ground that the damages awarded are excessive. In our judgment, the award of damages was excessive under the evidence, and the rule will be made absolute, unless plaintiff consents to a reduction of the sum to $1,500.

MINNICK v. WEST JERSEY & S. R. CO. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 13, 1899.) Action by John R. Minnick against the West Jersey & Seashore Railroad Company. Hearing on rule to show cause why new trial should not be granted. Rule discharged. Argued June term, 1899, before MAGIE, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, and LIPPINCOTT, JJ. Howard Carrow, for plaintiff. Joseph H. Gaskill, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The verdict is not so opposed to the weight of evidence, nor are the damages awarded so excessive, as to require the interference of this court. The rule to show cause must be discharged.

O'TOOLE v. CONSOLIDATED TRACTION CO. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 13, 1899.) Action by Elizabeth O'Toole against the Consolidated Traction Company. On rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted on a verdict for plaintiff. Rule discharged, on condition that plaintiff consent to a reduction. Argued June term, 1899, before MAGIE, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL, GARRISON, and LIPPINCOTT, JJ. Michael Dunn, for plaintiff. Eugene Stevenson, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The verdict in this case, although, in the judgment of this court, too large, is not so excessive as to necessarily indicate misconduct of the jury; but, upon the evidence in the case, we deem it excessive, and, unless plaintiff will consent to a reduction of the amount to the sum of $10,000, the rule will be made absolute. Upon such reduction, the rule will be discharged.

STATE (MEREDITH et al., Prosecutors) v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 27, 1899.) Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of William T. Meredith and others, against the city of Perth Amboy, to review the validity of a municipal ordinance providing for grading certain streets. Ordinance set aside. Argued June term, 1899, before COLLINS and DIXON, JJ. Cutter & Strong, for prosecutors. Mr. Wight, for defendant.

DIXON, J. This certiorari brings up a municipal ordinance, approved August 4, 1898, requiring the prosecutors and others, as owners of land fronting on Railroad avenue, to grade the sidewalk, carriageway, and gutters of the avenue in front of their land. In another controversy between the same parties we have decided that

the city has not acquired, or taken the necessary steps to acquire, the right to open this avenue over the land of the prosecutors. Therefore, without considering the other questions raised, we think this decision sufficiently demonstrates the illegality of the ordinance, at least so far as it affects the prosecutors. To that extent it is set aside, with costs.

STATE (STATEN ISLAND TERRA-COTTA LUMBER CO., Prosecutor) v. HANCOCK, Comptroller, et al. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Nov. 14, 1899.) Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of the Staten Island Terra-Cotta Lumber Company, against William S. Hancock, comptroller, and the state board of assessors. to review an assessment of taxes for the years 1897 and 1898, imposed under color of 3 Gen. St. p. 3335. Taxes set aside. Argued November term, 1899, before GARRISON and COLLINS, JJ. Sherrerd Depue, for prosecutor.

PER CURIAM. The case proved falls precisely within the adjudication of this court at its last term in the case of Zinc Co. v. Hancock, 44 Atl. 207. The tax imposed in each year is, therefore, set aside.

In re BROWNFIELD'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 6, 1899.) Appeal from orphans' court. Fayette county. In the matter of the estate of Isaac Brownfield, deceased. From decrees confirming reports of the auditor, passing on the accounts of William W. Brownfield and another, executors, Malinda Brownfield appeals. Dismissed. Geo. H. Lepper and S. E. Ewing, for appellants. Edward Campbell, for appellees.

MITCHELL, J. For reasons given in the opinion filed herewith in Appeal of Brownfield (Jan. term, 1898; No. 279) 44 Atl. 246, these appeals are dismissed, at the costs of appellant.

In re BROWNFIELD'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 6, 1899.) Appeal from orphans' court, Fayette county. In the matter of the estate of Isaac Brownfield, deceased. From decrees confirming reports of the auditor, passing on the accounts of William W. Brownfield and another, executors, they, as executors, appeal. Reversed. Edward Campbell, for appellants. Geo. H. Lepper and S. E. Ewing, for appellees.

MITCHELL, J. For reasons given in the opinion in Same Estate (Jan. term; No. 279) 44 Atl. 246, the decree is reversed, at the costs of the appellees.

In re BROWNFIELD'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 6, 1899.) Appeal from orphans' court, Fayette county. In the matter of the estate of Isaac Brownfield, deceased. From decrees confirming reports of the auditor, passing on the accounts of William W. Brownfield and another, executors, they, as trustees, appeal. Reversed. Edward Campbell, for appellants. Geo. H. Lepper and S. E. Ewing, for appellees.

MITCHELL, J. For reasons given in the opinion in Same Estate (Jan. term; No. 279) 44 Atl. 246, the decree is reversed, at the costs of the appellees.

COMMONWEALTH v. WIREBACK. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 31, 1899.) Application of C. E. Montgomery and John M. Groff, counsel for Ralph W. Wireback, convicted of murder in the first degree (42 Atl. 542), for a writ of mandamus directing John B. Livingston, president judge, and Charles I. Landis, additional law judge, of the court of oyer and terminer, Lancaster county, to order an inquiry into the alleged insanity of said Ralph W. Wireback, and the necessity for his treatment in a hospital for the insane. The petition alleged the insanity of the said Wireback, and appended to it was the testimony of nine physicians and persons in charge of Wireback to the effect that he was at present insane, with a refusal of the judges to order the inquiry. The petition was dismissed. C. E. Montgomery and John M. Groff, for prisoner. W. I. Hensel, Wm. P. Brown, and John A. Coyle, for the Commonwealth.

GREEN, J. Prayer of petition refused, and petition dismissed.

STERRETT, C. J., dissents.

HOOK et al. v. WHITE et al. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 30, 1899.) Appeal from court of common pleas, Greene county. Action by Thomas Hook and another, executors of Thomas Goodwin, deceased, against E. G. White and others. From the decree, complainants appeal. Affirmed. Frank W. Downey and James J. Purman, for appellants. William A. Hook and Buchanan & Walton, for appellees.

PER CURIAM. This appeal is from the decree of the court below making absolute the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened as to William Blair and Mordecai Kent, two of the defendants therein. In view of the evidence. the learned judge of the common pleas was fully warranted in making the decree. It is unnecessary, as well as improper, at this time, to review or discuss the testimony. That will be in order when the issue is tried before a jury. Neither of the specifications is sustained. Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at appellants' costs.

In re KELLY'S ESTATE. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 6, 1899.) Appeal from orphans' court, Philadelphia county. Proceeding in the estate of Joseph Kelly, deceased. From a decree of the orphans' court in banc, modifying the decree of the auditing judge as to the distribution of the fund comprising the estate, Mary A. Kelly, one of the beneficiaries, appeals. Reversed. Peirce Mecutchen and Silas W. Pettit, for appellant.

DEAN, J. This is an appeal from the same decree as that appealed from by the Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Company, in which opinion has this day been handed down. 44 Atl. 289. For the reasons therein stated, the decree of the court, modifying the decree of the auditing judge, is reversed, and the decree of the said auditing judge is adopted, and affirmed, as the decree of this court. As those intrusted with the execution of the will, because of its susceptibility to different interpretations, could not safely execute it without a judicial decree, it is directed that the costs of this appeal be paid out of the fund.

In re LINCOLN AVE. Appeal of JENKINSON. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 30, 1899.) Appeal from court of common pleas,

Allegheny county. In the matter of the improvement of Lincoln avenue in the borough of Bellevue. From decree dismissing exceptions to report of viewers, William Jenkinson appeals. Affirmed. James Fitzsimmons, J. S. Ferguson, and David L. Starr, for appellant. Geo. H. Quaill, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. We find no error in the record that would justify us in sustaining any of the specifications of error. For reasons given in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, he was clearly right in dismissing appellant's exceptions. Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at appellant's costs.

In re LINCOLN AVE. Appeal of RODGERS. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 30, 1899.) Appeal from court of common pleas, Allegheny county. In the matter of the improvement of Lincoln avenue in the borough of Bellevue. From decree dismissing exceptions to report of viewers, Mary Rodgers appeals. Affirmed. James Fitzsimmons, J. S. Ferguson, and David L. Starr, for appellant. Geo. H. Quaill, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. We find no error in this record that requires us to sustain any of the specifications of error. For reasons given in the opinion of the learned judge of the court below, appellant's exceptions were rightly dismissed. Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed, at appellant's costs.

PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK et al. v. LENZ. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Jan. 2, 1900.) Appeal from court of common pleas, Allegheny county. Proceedings by the People's National Bank and others against Henry Lenz to test the validity of a judgment. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. R. B. Ivory, for appellants. J. A. Wakefield and D. F. Patterson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. This was a feigned issue, to determine whether a judgment confessed by Loeffert & Son to Henry Lenz was fraudulent. It was a pure question of fact, and was necessarily to be determined by the jury. A large amount of testimony was taken, and, as there are no exceptions to the admission or rejection of evidence, it must be concluded that each party had the fullest opportunity to lay before the jury every matter of fact which might be considered as likely to affect the result. The learned court below fairly submitted the whole question of fraud to the jury. with instructions which, as it seems to us, gave the points of view on either side of the controversy to the jury without bias or unfairness, so far as we can discover. There was a serious conflict of testimony, which involved the credibility of witnesses. The court stated fairly what the controverted testimony was, and left its determination to the jury. Nothing else could have been done. We do not discover any error in the answers to the points. The assignments of error are all dismissed. Judgment affirmed.

REAL ESTATE GUARANTEE & INVESTMENT CO. v. DUDLEY et al. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 6, 1899.) Appeal from court of common pleas, Lancaster county. Suit by the Real-Estate Guarantee & Investment Company, formerly the Sussex Land & Cattle Company, against Edward Dudley and others. Decree for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Reversed. Richard C. Dale, for appellants. W. H.

Keller, John J. Ridgway, and H. M. North, for appellees.

DEAN, J. This issue, except in the name of parties plaintiff, is precisely the same as that of Sutton v. Same Defendants (44 Atl. 438), in which decree has this day been handed down. For the reasons accompanying that decree, this one is reversed, at the costs of the appellee, the injunction dissolved, and the bill dismissed.

TOWNSEND v. KERN. MARKET & FULTON NAT. BANK v. SAME. PEOPLE'S NAT. BANK v. SAME. ALLEGHENY NAT. BANK V. SAME. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Oct. 6, 1899.) Appeals from court of

common pleas, Philadelphia county. Consolidated actions, by Charles Townsend, the Market & Fulton National Bank, the People's National Bank, and the Allegheny National Bank, against Howard R. Kern. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. James Collins Jones and Lewin W. Barringer, for appellant People's Nat. Bank. Henry C. Todd, for appellant Allegheny Nat. Bank. Francis D. Lewis and Charles E. Morgan, Jr., for appellants Market & Fulton Nat. Bank and Charles Townsend. Bernard Gilpin and John G. Johnson, for appellee.

FELL, J. These cases involve the same questions which have been considered in Bank v. Kern, 44 Atl. 334, and, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case, the judgments are all affirmed.