People v. Jugigo, Id. 630; People v. Cignarale, 110 id. 23; People v. Kelly, 113 id. 647.) "This condition of the record leaves but one question open to us to examine, and that is whether the evidence discloses any just reason why the judgment of the court below should not be enforced. In reviewing the evidence in such a case this court has frequently laid down the rule that we shall be governed by the practice regulating appeals to the Supreme Court in dealing with questions of fact. This practice regards the jury as the ultimate tribunal for the investigation and determination of questions of fact, and, unless there are circumstances indicating some partiality, mistake, error or preju dice on their part, to regard their findings on disputed and conflicting evidence as conclusive. (People v. Cignarale, supra; People v. Kelly, supra.) "A careful perusal of the evidence in this case leads us to the conviction that the jury have made no mistake in their verdict." After a full consideration of the evidence the court say: "Sufficient has been related of the circumstances of this crime to show that the jury were not only justified in their verdict, but were compelled to the conclusion which it indicated. "We are, therefore, of the opinion that the ends of justice require us to approve the verdict of the jury and affirm the judgment appealed from." William F. Howe for appellant. McKenzie Semple for respondent. RUGER, Ch. J., reads for affirmance. Judgment affirmed. HERMAN C. BASKIN et al., as Executors, etc., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON D. HAYS, Respondent. (Argued June 8, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made the first Tuesday of January, 1891, which affirmed judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon the report of a referee. John Gillette for appellant. M. A. Leary for respondent. Agree to affirm; no opinion. Judgment affirmed. THE PEOPLE ex rel. GEORGE F. CомSTOCK, Appellant, v. THE MAYOR, etc., of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (Submitted June 16, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made February 3, 1891, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a writ of peremptory mandamus. Charles H. Peck for appellant, and George F. Comstock, appellant in person. C. L. Stone for respondent. Agree to affirm on opinion below. All concur. Order affirmed. EUGENIA A. PENFIELD, Respondent, v. NEW York and MOUNT VERNON WATER COMPANY, Appellant. (Submitted June 17, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made June 20, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. Milo J. White for appellant. Norman A. Lawlor for respondent. Agree to affirm; no opinion. All concur. Judgment affirmed. SIRAGAN S. COSTIKYAN, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. THE ROME, WATERTOWN AND OGDENSBURG RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. (Submitted June 17, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made January 23, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order deny. ing a motion for a new trial. Edmund B. Wynn for appellant. Abram & Niles C. Bartholomew for respondent. Agree to affirm; no opinion. All concur. Judgment affirmed. POSTAL TELEGRAPH CABLE COMPANY, Appellant, v. HUGH J. GRANT, Sheriff, etc., Respondent. (Argued June 17, 1891, decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made October 24, 1890, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Andrew Wesley Kent for appellant. Charles F. Tabor, Attorney-General, for respondent. Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion. All concur. Appeal dismissed. SICKELS-VOL. LXXXIII. 80 DAVID D. WEAVER, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. JOHN N. BULLIS, Appellant. (Submitted June 16, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 11, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. Daniel W. Guernsey for appellant. Hackett & Williams for respondent. Agree to affirm; no opinion. All concur. STEWART H. PINK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM S. CHURCH, a Administrator, etc.. Appellant. (Argued June 18, 1891; decided October 6, 1891 ) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 11, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. Allison Butts for appellant. Stephen G. Guernsey for respondent. Agree to affirm: no opinion. Al concur. Judgment affirmed. JULIEN T. DAVIES, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CONCERT COMPANY (Limited), Appellant. (Argued June 18, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made February 13, 1891, which overruled defendant's exceptions and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff upon a verdict directed by the court, and denied a motion for a new trial. William H. Arnoux for appellant. William B. Hornblower for respondent. Agree to affirm; no opinion. All concur. Judgment affirmed. KATIE COOK, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. (Argued June 18, 1891; decided October 6, 1891.) APPEAL from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judical department, entered upon an order made February 4, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial. John D. Wendell for appellant. George S. Klock for respondent. Agree to affirm; no opinion. All concur. Judgment affirmed. |