
    OETHOUT, Respondent, v. KERR, Appellant, et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 22, 1903.)
    Action by Samuel N. Oethout against Emily W. Kerr and another. From an order denying defendant Kerr’s motion to vacate an order for substituted service, she appeals. Affirmed.
    Charles W. Dayton, for appellant.
    Joseph M. Williams, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant made a motion to vacate an order for substituted service, which was denied. Defendant appeals. The affidavits sufficiently show that defendant was a resident of the state and was avoiding service. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the justice. See Code, § 435; Collins v. Ryan, 32 Barb. 647; Haswell v. Lincks, 87 N. Y. 637. Order is affirmed, with costs.  