been a demand for such accounting and a refusal to account by the defendants before the commencement of the action. The answer in part admitted and in part denied the allegations of the complaint, and plead as separate defenses, first, a full settlement and discharge of all claims of the plaintiff against the defendants; and, secondly, an accord, satisfaction and discharge of such claims. Arthur Furber, of New York City, for appellants. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. MCLAUGHLIN, J., not sitting. NEW YORK COUNTY NAT. BANK v. PECKWORTH et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 29, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (169 App. Div. 817, 153 N. Y. Supp. 860), entered June 25, 1915, modifying, and affirming, as modified, a judgment in favor of defendant, appellant, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was brought in equity to recover an unpaid balance due from Bernheimer & Schwartz Pilsener Brewing Company, under a contract made by it as owner with the defendant Charles H. Peckworth for the construction of a building. The claim of the plaintiff, respondent, is based on an assignment made to it by the contractor, the defendant Charles H. Peckworth. The appellant, Wood, was made a party defendant because he had filed a notice of mechanic's lien against the premises. The appellant pleaded the said lien and asked its foreclosure in preference and priority to the claim of the plaintiff, respondent. The trial justice found that the lien of the defendant, appellant, was entitled to priority over the claim of the plaintiff, respondent, and judgment was entered directing payment of the appellant's lien, with interest out of the amount concededly due from the owner to the contractor. On appeal from said judgment the Appellate Division modified the judgment of the trial court and directed judgment that the plaintiff, respondent, by reason of its said assignment, was entitled to priority of payment to the defendant, appellant, by reason of his said mechanic's lien. William R. Hill and William F. Kimber, both of New York City, for appellant. L. Laflin Kellogg and William K. Hartpence, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. terclaims raised by the defendant and sought to be established at the trial were that although the note was by its terms made payable on demand, a valid agreement had been made to extend the time of payment of the note for an indefinite period of time, which was described to be until the Mechanics' & Traders' Bank, another institution holding notes of defendant, demanded payments of the notes which it held, or until said notes were paid, or until the panic of 1907 was at an end and conditions again became normal, and that as a part of said agreement defendant was to be permitted to control and direct the manner in which the collateral to the note held by plaintiff was to be handled. Because of this agreement, it was claimed the note was not due when suit was brought, and that the prior sale of the securities held as collateral constituted a conversion, for which defendant was entitled to damages. C. A. Winter, of New York City, Ford, both of New York City, for respondent. for appellant. William C. Breed and Sumner FER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CARDOZO, J., not sitting. NYLAND, Respondent, V. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 23, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department (175 App. Div. 965, 161 N. Y. Supp. 1137), entered November 23, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff's intestate was struck by one of defendant's trains while walking along the sidewalk on North Clinton street in the city of Syracuse. At the place of the accident the railroad track crossed the sidewalk at grade. The defense was contributory negligence. A. H. Cowie, of Syracuse, for appellant. S. F. Hancock, of Syracuse, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. MeLAUGHLIN, J., dissents, on the ground that the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributory negligence. O'BRIEN, Respondent, V. FLINNHISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDE- | O'ROURKE CO., Inc., Appellant. (Court of BACK, HOGAN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. Appeals of New York. Jan. 22, 1918.) ApCARDOZO and POUND, JJ., dissent. peal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 949, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1102), entered May 2, 1917, affirming an award of the State Industrial Commission made under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67). An award was made both to the mother and father of a deceased employé. The appeal is from the award to the mother and is based upon the following facts: Michael O'Brien, father, and Catherine O'Brien, mother, of deceased, were living together at the time of the death of James O'Brien, appellant's employé. There were several children living at home, including said James O'Brien at the time of his death. At that time the father was working and was receiving $2 a day. There was another son, who paid the rent of the home. There were also two daughters at home, each of whom paid to her parents $4 a week, and also there was the deceased son, James O'Brien, who contributed $14 or $15 a week and lived at home. Appellant contended that these facts NORTHERN BANK OF NEW YORK v. FULLERTON. (Court of Appeals of New York. March 26, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (Northern Bank of New York v. Fleitman, 173 App. Div. 887, 157 N. Y. Supp. 1138), entered March 7, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action is brought to recover the balance due on a promissory note of $8,000 made by defendant. The note is the usual form of collateral note used by banks, bearing date March 7, 1906, and payable on demand, with interest, at the rate of per cent. Payment was demanded January 18, 1908, and on nonpayment the stocks held as collateral were sold on notice to defendant and defendant was allowed credit on the principal of the note for the proceeds of the sale. The defense and coun did not justify the conclusion that Catherine O'Brien was dependent upon her deceased son at the time of his death. Edward M. Grout and James F. McKinney, both of New York City, for appellant. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. he died of pulmonary tuberculosis. There was evidence to the effect that the gas poisoning was the primary cause of the disease which caused death. The award was resisted on the ground that the death was not the result of an accidental injury or of a disease or infection which naturally and unavoidably resulted therefrom, and on the further ground that the employé failed to notify the employer of the alleged accidental injury as required by section 18 of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Clyde Sherwood and Amos H. Stephens, both of New York City, for appellants. Merton E. Lewis, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, of Albany, of E. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. O'CONNOR, Respondent, v. LOESCH, Ap-counsel), for respondent. pellant, et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 26, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (171 App. Div. 947, 156 N. Y. Supp. 1137), entered December 30, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendants. Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant, appellant, who was a general contractor engaged in altering and repairing a building. In the performance of the work a subcontractor removed a portion of the floor of a room leaving the remaining part propped up. Plaintiff entered the room for the purpose of getting his coat, which he had left hanging therein, walked across the propped-up floor, which fell, and thereby received the injuries complained of. He contended that it was the duty of his employer to warn him of the dangerous condition of the floor. Appellant contended that the place where the accident happened was under the control of the subcontractor; that it was not a place furnished by the appellant to his men for the performance of any of their work; that the plaintiff could have gone directly from the place where he had been working to the room below, where he should have hung his coat in the place provided by his master, and where his fellow workmen and himself ate their lunch, without having to go upon this floor or leave the scaffolding which remained after the removal of the floor; that consequently there was no duty on the part of the appellant to warn the plaintiff, or to have inspected this floor, nor would any inspection made have disclosed the condition which brought about the accident, unless it was made within the few minutes which intervened between the time when the workmen loosened the last section and a half and propped it up and went to dinner and the time when the plaintiff stepped upon these sections. Frederick J. Flynn and James F. Donnelly, both of New York City, for appellant. John J. Cunneen, of New York City, for respondent. ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINTH V. PRENSTREET REALTY COMPANY DERGAST, City Comptroller. (Court of ApCrosspeals of New York. Jan. 29, 1918.) appeals from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 786, 167 N. Y. Supp. 367), entered November 15, 1917, which modified, and affirmed as modified, an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the comptroller of the city of New York to pay to the relator the amount of a change of grade award, together with interest at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from December 30, 1904, to the time of the payment of the award. The comptroller contended that no interest was payable. The Appellate Division modified the order, so as to provide for the issuance of the writ requiring the comptroller to pay the award, with interest from November 10, 1906, William instead of from December 30, 1904. (Charles J. Nehrbas and Terence Farley, both P. Burr, Corp. Counsel, of New York City of New York City, of counsel), for appellant. John M. Harrington and Leon Forst, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM: Judgment affirmed, with costs. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. O'DELL V. POWER CO. et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. May 14, 1918.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (181 App. Div. 910. 167 N. Y Supp. 1116), entered December 10, 1917, unanimously affirming an award of the State Industrial Commission made under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67). Claimant's husband, an electrician in the employ of defendant power company, on August 5, 1916, while engaged in stringing wires in an ash cellar under defendant's boiler room became ill from coal gas. On November 6, 1916, ADIRONDACK ELECTRIC PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. (Court of O'ROURKE, Respondent, v. MCMULLENSNARE & TRIEST, Inc., Appellant. Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (172 App. Div. 894, 156 N. Y. Supp. 1137), entered December 29, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer. The complaint alleged that plaintiff, a drill runner, while working in the construction of the Lexington Avenue subway in New York City was directed by his foreman to get upon a large rock that had been dislodged by a blast and to drill holes therein; that while plaintiff received the injuries complained of. so engaged the rock split and rolled over and Defendant contended that no negligence on its part was proved. John R. Halsey and Adrian T. Kiernan, both of New York City, for appellant. Leonard F. Fish and Thomas J. O'Neill, both of New York City, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed, with costs. CHASE, COLLIN, HOGAN, and McLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, C. J., and CUDDEBACK and CRANE, JJ., dissent. ORR et al., Respondents, v. DOUBLEDAY, PER CURIAM. Motion for reargument de- PAYNE et al., Respondents, v. EAGLE SAV- PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal PECK, Respondent, v. BURDICK & SON, Judgment affirmed, with HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDE- PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BERGSTROM, Ap- PER CURIAM. Motion granted. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BOYCE, Appellant. Kingston, for appellant. Frederick G. Traver, PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. BRIGGS, Appel- PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- CHASE, HOGÁN, CARDOZO, POUND, Mc- concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. COHEN, Appel- PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. LAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GIDDINGS et al., PER CURIAM. Motion granted, and appeal May PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GREEN, Appel- PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction af- HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDE- PEOPLE, Respondent, v. HART, Appellant. a Trial Term for the county of Kings, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Edward J. Reilly, of Brooklyn, for appellant. Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Harry G. Anderson, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. RAMSEY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Marcb 19, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 523, 165 N. Y. Supp. 957), entered July 12, 1917, affirming an order of the St. Lawrence County Court, affirming a judgment of a Justice's Court, rendered upon a verdict convicting the HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDE-lation of section 185 of the Conservation Law defendant of hunting without a license in vioBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and of the state of New York (Consol. Laws, c. ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. KUSHNIERUK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 5, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered May 31, 1917, at a Trial Term for the county of Essex upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Patrick J. Tierney, of Plattsburg, and P. J. Finn, of Ticonderogo, for appellant. O. Byron Brewster, of Elizabethtown, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LINTON, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 29, 1918.) Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the County of New York, rendered May 29, 1917, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. The motion was made upon the ground of failure to prosecute the appeal. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City, for the motion. Clark L. Jordan, of New York City, opposed. PER CURIAM. Motion denied, on condition that, within 30 days after decision of motion for new trial, appellant complete record on appeal and serve copies of brief. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LISCHUK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 23, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered June 28, 1917, at a Trial Term for the county of Essex, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Fred W. Dudley and Fred J. Ring, both of Port Henry, for appellant. O. Byron Brewster, Dist. Atty., of Elizabethtown, for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. COLLIN CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, C. J., dissents. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. OSTRANSKY, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 2, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace in the county of New York, rendered November 12, 1917, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree. Vincent Gilroy and Frederick A. Ware, both of New York City, for appellant. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert C. Taylor, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment of conviction affirmed. CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. HISCOCK, C. J., not sitting. 65). Forrest K. Moreland, of Ogdensburgh, for appellant. James C. Dolan, Dist. Atty., of Gouverneur, for the People. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, MCLAUGHLIN, and CRANE, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. SMORACK, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 23, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in the First Judicial Department (181 App. Div. 928, 167 N. Y. Supp. 1120), entered December 21, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of General Sessions in the county of New York rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of criminally receiving stolen property. Abraham Levy, Max S. Levine, and Leo H. Klugherz, all of New York City, for appellant. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Don Carlos Buell, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. lant. (Court of Appeals of New York. May PEOPLE, Respondent, v. STAPLER, Appel14, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 881, 165 N. Y. Supp. 513), entered June 8, 1917, which affirmed a judgment rendered at a Trial Term for the county of New York upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. Clark L. Jordan, of New York City, for appellant. Edward Swann, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Robert S. Johnstone, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., dissents. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. STOPPANI, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 15, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 939, 166 N. Y. Supp. 1108), entered July 31, 1917, which affirmed a judgment of the court at a Trial Term rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. Peter P. Smith, of Brooklyn, for appellant. Harry E. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Brooklyn (Ralph E. Hemstreet, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ZANNI, Appellant. (Court of Appeals of New York. April 23, 1918.) Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 885, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1105), entered June 8, 1917, which affirmed a judgment rendered at a Trial Term for the county of Bronx, upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the second degree. Robert H. Elder and Otho S. Bowling, both of New York City, for appellant. Francis Martin, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Charles B. McLaughlin, of New York City, of counsel), for the People. PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed. CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, MCLAUGHLIN, CRANE, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. EAST RIVER GAS CO. OF LONG ISLAND CITY, Appellant, v. PURDY et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of City of New York, Respondents (three cases). (Court of Appeals of New York. Jan. 29, 1918.) Appeal, in each of three above-entitled proceedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (179 App. Div. 889, 165 N. Y. Supp. 1105), entered July 6, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming assessments upon an uncompleted tunnel in course of construction by the relator under the East River. The relator attacked the assessments upon the grounds that the tunnel under the East River should have been assessed by the state board of tax commissioners as part of the special franchises of the company; that the assessments by the local board were therefore void; that the local board had no power to assess the mere easement or right of way under the river, that was an easement in gross, an incorporeal hereditament, upon which no structure had been erected; that the assessments were void, because not made in the manner required by the statute; that the shafts had already been included in the assessments made against the owners of the upland in which they were situated; and that the assessments, even if within the jurisdiction of the local board, represented an excessive valuation of the property. John A. Garver, of New York City, for appellant. William P. Burr, Corp. Counsel, of New York City (William H. King and Addison B. Scoville, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondents. PER CURIAM. Order in each case affirmed, with costs of one appeal. HISCOCK, C. J., and COLLIN. CUDDEBACK. HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. PEOPLE ex rel. FISKE v. ANDERSON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 5, 1918.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (168 N. Y. Supp. 839), entered January 18, 1918, which affirmed an order of Special Term deny ing a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendant inspectors of election to correct their return or statement of canvass of the votes of soldiers and sailors originally canvassed by them in the first election district of the Third ward of the city of Mt. Vernon on the 18th day of December, 1917. The relator, . Edwin W. Fiske, and the respondent, Edward F. Brush, were rival candidates for the office of mayor of the city of Mt. Vernon, at the general election held in said city on November 6, 1917. The votes of the soldiers and sailors in said election were canvassed in the several election_districts of said city on December 18, 1917. In the First election district of the Third ward of said city the votes of 19 soldiers and sailors were so canvassed on the said last-mentioned date. Among such ballots was one which had written on it "For Mayor-Dr. Brush," which the inspectors tallied and returned for Edward F. Brush. The Special Term denied the motion, on the ground that the vote was properly canvassed, and that, in any event, the ballot was not protested, and could not be reviewed by the court. The Appellate Division affirmed, on the ground that, as a matter of law, the relator was entitled to no relief herein. Arthur M. Johnson, Sydney A. Syme, and Frank A. Bennett, all of Mt. Vernon, for appellant. George H. Taylor, Jr., of New York City, and James H. Cavanaugh and J. Henry Esser, both of Mt. Vernon, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, and MCLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur. HOGAN and CRANE, JJ., dissent. PEOPLE ex rel. FISKE v. ANDERSON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 5, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (168 N. Y. Supp. 840), entered January 18, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the inspectors of election of the First election district of the Third ward of the city of Mt. Vernon to reconvene and in the presence of the parties or their attorneys to proceed forthwith to unseal and open the ballot box of the said election district, containing the ballots of the soldiers and sailors which were canvassed aforesaid, to take therefrom the ballots therein which were each and all protested at the time of the canvassing thereof and indorse on the back of each a memorandum of the protest thus made, and sign such indorsement, then to unseal and open the package of protested, void and wholly blank ballots for said election district, place therein such ballots so indorsed, and reseal said package and deliver the same to the commissioners of election of the county of Westchester. Sydney A. Syme, Arthur M. Johnson, and Frank A. Bennett, all of Mt. Vernon, for appellant. George H. Taylor, Jr., of New York City, and James H. Cavanaugh and J. Henry Esser, both of Mt. Vernon, for respondent. PER CURIAM. Order affirmed. HISCOCK, C. J., and CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, and MCLAUGHLIN, JJ., concur. CRANE, J., dissents, on the ground that section 520 of the Election Law (Consol. Laws, c. 17) justified an order directing a recanvass and recount of the soldier vote. PEOPLE ex rel. FISKE v. ANDERSON et al. (Court of Appeals of New York. Feb. 5, 1918.) Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (168 N. Y. Supp. 840), entered January 18, 1918, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the board of county canvassers of Westchester county to reconvene and correct certain errors in the canvass of the soldiers' and sailors' vote cast at the general election on November 6, 1917. By a supplemental official return as to the soldiers' and sailors' ballots canvassed in the first election district of the Third ward of the city of Mt. Vernon, made by the inspectors of election thereof, pursuant to an order of the Special Term, it was made to appear that all of said ballots were protest |