
    (62 Misc. Rep. 461.)
    MURPHY v. JOLINE et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 5, 1909.)
    Courts (§ 189)—Municipal Courts—Verdict—Vacation—Setting Cause eob Retrial.
    An order setting aside a verdict as contrary to the evidence, but omitting to set the case for retrial at a specified time, as required by Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580) § 254, was erroneous.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
    Action by Mary Etta Murphy against Adrian H. Joline and another, as receivers, etc. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and DAYTON, JJ.
    W. L. Cannon, for appellant.
    Anthony J. Ernest, for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

The learned trial justice, having had before him all the witnesses, was of opinion, and decided, after opportunity for full consideration of the evidence and the law, that, the verdict for the plaintiff was contrary to the weight of evidence and to the law, announcing his decision October 13, 1908. Thereon he signed, December 19, 1908, an order presented by the defendants, from which, however, was omitted setting down the'case for trial at a time specified, as required by section 254 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580), and so was unauthorized. . Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co. v. Catharine, 25 Misc. Rep. 338, 55 N. Y. Supp. 475; Wolchock v. Tombarelli, 32 Misc. Rep. 694, 66 N. Y. Supp. 504. This is the order appealed from. It must be reversed.

Order reversed, with costs.  