
    William M. Kingsland, Resp’t, v. The Mayor, etc., of New York, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed April 17, 1891.)
    
    Case—Settlement.
    Where the appeal is taken on the ground that the rights of the appellant were infringed by the reading by the opposing counsel of authorities to the jury in his summing up, the case need not contain all the authorities so read. The insertion of one or two is sufficient to raise the question of law involved, and more would he surplusage and should of necessity he excluded.
    Appeal from order denying motion to- re-settle case.
    
      C. Blandy, for app’lt; W. W. MacFarland, for resp’t.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

The appellant in this case claims that his rights were infringed by the reading by the counsel for the plaintiff, in his summing up, of authorities to the jury.

That question is presented upon the case as settled in respect to two authorities; and it is claimed by the counsel for the appellant that more were referred to which were not contained in the case. The court denied the motion to re-settle the case by insertion of the additional authorities, and from such order this appeal is taken.

We think this appeal is entirely without merit The question is fairly raised upon the case as settled. If it was error in respect to the two cases cited in the appeal book as settled, the question is raised as completely as though it contained pages of cases.

This being simply a question of law, in respect to which the jury had nothing to do, the court was bound to abbreviate the recital of the point as much as possible so long as the record presented fairly and squarely the exception, and there is no complaint but that the exception is fairly presented in respect to the two authorities contained in the case on appeal, and the only dissent is from the - fact that the court refused to multiply other cases from which it is alleged the plaintiff's counsel read to the jury.

As already stated, all that we think the court was bound to insert in the case was sufficient to raise the question of law involved, and that anything beyond that was surplusage, and must of necessity be excluded; and we may say that the court may have refused to insert these cases because in its opinion they were not referred to. But it is not necessary to place our decision upon this ground, as the one already stated is sufficient

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Daniels, J., concurs.  