Volume 153 — New York Reports

Smith, one of the executors. The facts, so- far as material, are stated in the opinion. Hone of the acts performed by Mr. Smith for the testatrix was of the character of professional legal services, and on that ground the testimony of the legal expert witnesses upon the question of value was improperly received.

On the 11th of August, 1896, the superintendent of the banking department, considering a banking corporation, known as the Murray Hill Bank, to be in an unsound and unsafe condition to do banking business, closed its doors and took possession of its property. He at once caused an examination to be made into the affairs of the bank and discovered that it was insolvent. Its capital of $100,000 was exhausted and there was a deficiency of about $260,000.

<p>Will — When not Subscribed at End. A will, drawn upon a printed blank covering only one page and signed by the testator and subscribing witnesses at the foot of the page, is not “ subscribed by the testator at the end of the will,” as required by the statute (2 R. S. 63, § 40), when the blank space in the printed form is filled up by subdivisions marked respectively “First” and “ Second,” followed by the words “See annexed sheet,” and additional subdivisions, marked respectively “ Third” and “Fourth,” are written on a separate piece of paper attached to the face of the blank, immediately over the first and second subdivisions, by removable metal staples.</p>

Appeal taken in behalf of the state from an award of the Board of Claims, made December 21, 1887, against the state in favor of the county of Cayuga. The material facts are as follow's : In the years 1873 to 1877, inclusive, several convicts in the state prison at Auburn were indicted and tried in the county of Cayuga for crimes committed in the prison.

Cross-appeals from an order and judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered, respectively, June 29 and September 9, 1896, which affirmed a judgment entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The questions in this case arise upon cross-appeals from an order and judgment of the Appellate Division in the first department, affirming a judgment entered upon a verdict directed by the court.

The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. The testimony of the defendant Rogers should have been admitted. (Code Civ.

The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The petition was fatally defective. (L. 1896, ch. 902, § 37; L. 1892, ch. 686, § 37; L. 1895, ch. 937.) The learned Appellate Division erred in dismissing the writ, upon the ground that, in its opinion, the .act of the board of supervisors, in establishing the district, was purely legislative and not in any sense judicial, and, therefore, not a subject of review by writ of certiorari.

This was an action upon a promissory note. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Defendant’s contract of indorsement being founded upon an illegal consideration, no action can he maintained thereon.

'Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered April ■5, 1897, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a writ of peremptory mandamus. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. To entitle the applicant 'to a peremptory writ of mandamus it must appear that his right to the office or position of registrar of vital statistics is •clear and distinct. (Code Civ.

The nature of the proceeding and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The Colonial City Traction Company was duly organized as a street surface railway company. (Spelling on Priv. Corp. § 44; In re M. H. Co., 14 Cal. 424; Patterson v. Arnold, 45 Penn. St. 410; W. M. Ins.

1897, which affirmed an order of Special Term directing the defendants as receivers to pay the claim of Wilson E. Palmer for wages, etc. The respondent was employed by the Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Company, a domestic corporation, prior to the appointment of the appellants as its receivers.

<p>1. Criminal law—Appeal.</p> <p>Section. 20, chap. 601 of 1895, which gives the right to appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment of the court of special sessions in the city of New York, is constitutional.</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>The legislature has the power to enact a statute providing for a final review in the court of appeals of a judgment or order made by a magistrate, convicting a party as a disorderly person.</p> <p>3. Same—Disorderly person.</p> <p>The offense of abandoning or deserting a wife, if not a crime within the meaning of the Penal Code, is clearly of a criminal nature, and it is incumbent upon the people to prove it.</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>Though it is the duty of the husband to support his wife, he is not bound to support her away from his home, even though such home may be disagreeable to her.</p> <p>5. Same.</p> <p>Abandonment, in the sense in which the term is used in the statute means the actual and willful desertion by the husband of the wife.</p> <p>6. Samb.</p> <p>After a judicial separation at the suit of the wife, the relation is so far terminated or suspended that the husband "cannot be guilty of abandonment or desertion in any legal sense.</p> <p>7. Same.</p> <p>If the wife herself procures, or consents to, the separation, the case-does not come within the statute.</p> <p>8. Same.</p> <p>The fact that the court in the decree of separation made no allowance-for the wife, does not change the situation.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 26, 1894, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a report of a referee.</p> <p>The nature of the action and the facts, so far as materia1, are stated in the opinion.</p>

Appeal, by certification, from an order of the Appellate ' Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 25, 1897, which modified and, as so modified, affirmed an order made at Special Term granting an injunction against the defendant pendente lite.

<p>Motion for a reargument.</p>

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered Eebruary 11, 1896, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Superior Court of Buffalo, entered July 10, 189J, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granted a new trial.</p>