
    Hillsborough, )
    Oct. 3, 1905. (
    Attorney-General (ex rel. Putnam) v. Fogarty.
    Information, in the nature of quo warranto, filed by the attorney-general and prosecuted by the relator. Facts agreed. Transferred from the January term, 1905, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J.
    
      Hamblett Spring and Charles W. Hoitt, for the plaintiff.
    
      Coyle Lucier, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The agreed case contains no provision for judgment and presents merely a moot question. Such questions are not considered in the absence of special reason therefor. Conn. Valley Lumber Co. v. Monroe, 71 N. H. 478. No reason for an exception to the general rule is perceived in this case.

Case discharged.  