Volume 191 — New York Reports

The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The record on appeal is defective because of the loss of the original handwriting exhibits. (State v. Reed, 67 Mo. 36; State v. Armstrong, 46 Mo. 588; State v. Daily, 45 Mo. 153; Sweeden v. State, 19 Ark. 205; Bivens v. State, 6 Eng. [Ark.] 451; State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36; State v. Dawson, 124 Mo. 418; R. B. Co. v. Stewart, 45 N. Y. Supp. 69; Ransom v. Wheelwright, 19 Misc.

The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The judgment should be reversed on account of the erroneous instruction of the learned trial justice to the jury on the question of contributory negligence, if the intestate was injured by reason of having pushed his brother Henry out of danger. (Lamkin v. Palmer, 164 N. Y. 201; Toohey v. I. S. Ry. Co., 102 App. Div. 296; Carr v. M. U. Ice Co., 91 App. Div. 162; Sciurba v. M. S. Ry.

<p>' 1. Landlord and Tenant — Tenant’s Covenant to Make Repairs — Measure of Damages in Action for Tenant’s Breach of Covenant. Where an action, brought by a landlord for the breach of a lessee’s covenant to keep the premises in repair, is commenced before the expiration of the term, the measure of damages is the injury done to the reversion: while, if the action is brought after the expiration of the term, the measure of damages is the cost of putting the premises into repair.</p> <p>2. Same—Landlord’s Right to Recover Cost of Putting Building into State of Repair, Contemplated by the Covenant, Mot Affected by Pact That Subsequent Tenant Made Repairs to Building at I-Iis Own Expense. Where it appears in an action for the breach of a lessee’s covenant to keep the premises in repair, which was not brought until after the expiration of the defendant’s term under the lease, that prior to such expiration the demised premises had been let to another tenant, a corporation, which, subsequently and after the defendant’s term had expired, made at its own expense certain repairs upon the building which were sufficient to put it into good condition, the measure of damages is the cost of putting the demised premises into the state of repair contemplated by the broken covenant, and the landlord’s right to recover this amount is net aSected by the subsequent act of the new tenant in repairing the building.</p>

The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion It was error to receive in evidence and to read to the jury the letters of the deceased which she had written to the defendant(Willett v. People, 27 Hun, 477; 92 N. Y. 29; People v. Green, 1 Park. Cr.

of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered December 2, 1907, which affirmed a determination of the state commission of gas and electricity fixing the maximum price that the defendant could charge for gas and electricity in the village of Saratoga Springs. The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.

The transaction in question sprang out of proceedings by the county to acquire lands occupied by an old cemetery in the city of Buffalo for an armory site. In 1900 an act was passed by the legislature (L. 1900, ch. 277) authorizing the board of supervisors of the county of Erie to acquire what was known as the North Street Cemetery as a site for an armory.

The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. Prosecution for the crime charged in the indictment was barred by the Statute of Limitations when the indictment was presented. (Code Cr. Pro. § 142; People v. Lord, 12 Hun, 282; U. S. v. Irvine, 98 U. S. 450; Gise v. Comm., 81 Penn. St. 428; People v. Willis, 24 Misc. Rep. 549; State v. Graham, 96 Mo. 120; Roth v. State, 135 Tex.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 25, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying an application for an order fixing the compensation of the appellant herein for services rendered as counsel to the district attorney at a criminal trial. The facts, so far as material, and the question certified are stated in the opinion.

The facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. It was error for the trial court to permit the district attorney to prove that the town in which the alleged crime was committed was a “ no-license ” town.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of bribery in that, while a coroner of the borough of Manhattan, upon an information duly laid before him as slch, he issued a warrant to arrest one John W. Alexander for causing the death of Maria Smith at the town of Montclair, in the state of Mew Jersey, by a criminal act done by him in the borough of Manhattan, in the state of Mew York; that said Alexander when arrested by virtue of said warrant and arraigned before the defendant…

The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The decision of the Appellate Division cannot be sustained by this court upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division. (Cooper v. N. Y., O. & W. R. Co., 180 N. Y. 12; Volkommer v. Cody, 177 N. Y. 124; Butler v. Wright, 186 N. Y. 259; Spence v. Ham, 163 N. Y. 220; Nat.

<p>1. Constitutional Law — Constitutional Provision That “The Legislative Power of This State Shall Be Vested in a Senate and Assembly ” — Construction and Effect Thereof. The constitutional provision (H. T. Const, art. 3, § 1) that "The legislative power of this state shall be vested in a Senate and Assembly,” was adopted to insure a representative form of government within" tliis state. It applies to all enactments, strictly and exclusively legislative, pertaining to and affecting the whole state or any integral part thereof, but it does not prohibit the legislature from exercising powers, or enacting laws, which are not strictly legislative; nor does it prohibit the legislature from delegating to inferior governmental bodies, or to the people of limited localities, powers and functions which, although legislative in form, are in their nature administrative lather than strictly and exclusively legislative.</p> <p>2. Same — County Law (L. 1893, On. 686, §§ 31, 32, 33) — Provision Requiring the Question of the Removal of County Buildings to Be Submitted to the Electors of the County — Hot in Conflict with State Constitution (Art. 3, § 1). The provision of the County Law (L. 1892, ch. 686, §§ 81, 32, 33), relating to the changing of the site of county buildings and offices from one part of a county to another, and providing that, after such change has been approved by the board of supervisors of the county by a resolution adopted by a majority of all the members elected thereto, the question of the proposed removal shall “ be submitted to the electors of the county at the ensuing general election” to “be voted on” by such electors at such election “by ballot,” and “if a majority of the ballots cast shall be in favor of such removal, the proceedings of such board of supervisors shall be deemed ratified by the electors, and the change of the site of such buildings, or the removal of such offices, shall be made accordingly,” is not such a delegation of legislative power to the people that it constitutes a violation of the constitutional provision vesting the legislative power of the state in a senate and assembly (N. Y. Const, art. 3, § 1). The line of demarcation between legislative and administrative functions may not always be easily discerned, but the deciding upon, or the fixing of, the "site of county buildings, is in its nature administrative and is not strictly and exclusively a legislative power within the meaning of the Constitution.</p>

<p>Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second' judicial department, entered October 13, 1906, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial in an action to recover for damages to live stock of the plaintiffs alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence while in transit over its railroad.</p>

Appeal in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 19, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to enforce an attorney’s lien.