Catherine Stirling, Respondent, v. Bridget Kelley, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Patrick Kelley, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Matthias J. Kelley, Appellant

Catherine Stirling, Respondent, v. Bridget Kelley, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Patrick Kelley, Deceased, et al., Defendants, and Matthias J. Kelley, Appellant. Stirling v. Keiley, 90 App. Div. 611, affirmed. (Argued October 14, 1904; decided October 28, 1904.) Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 20, 1904, which affirmed an order of the court at a Trial Term denying a motion to set aside a verdict and for a new trial. The following question was certified : “ Did the Court commit reversible error in the rulings made by it, and contained in the following quotations from the case and exceptions on this appeal: “ I. ‘ Q. You heard Mr. Higham testify that he heard your father say or testify upon that occasion that he owned the property ? Is that true ? Objection. Mr. Williams : I do not ask if Mr. Highani’s statement was true, but if he owned the property. Objection. Sustained. Exception to defendants.’ “II. £Q. I now ask who owned that property ? Objection. Sustained. Exception to defendants. The Court : The witness is disqualified under Section 829 of the Code.’ “ III. £ Q. Where did the money come from that bought that property ? Objection. Sustained. That calls for a conclusion, as well as violates the section. Exception to defendant.’ ” Harry I). Williams for appellant. August Becker for respondent. [MAJORITY] Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion. Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, IIaight, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ.