
    In the Matter of the Application of John C. Hertle and John Purroy Mitchel, Commissioners of Accounts of the City of New York, Respondents, for a Warrant for the Arrest and Committal to Jail of George R. Olney, Appellant. In the Matter of the Application of John C. Hertle and John Purroy Mitchel, Commissioners of Accounts of the City of New York, Respondents, for a Warrant for the Arrest and Committal to Jail of George F. Scannell, Appellant. In the Matter of the Application of John C. Hertle and John Purroy Mitchel, Commissioners of Accounts of the City of New York, Respondents, for a Warrant for the Arrest and Committal to Jail of William H. Walker, Appellant.
    First Department,
    July 15, 1907.
    See head note in Matter of Hertle (In re Ahearn), ante, p. 717.
    Appeals by George R. Olney, George F. Scannell and William II. Walker, respectively, from respective orders and warrants of commitment, one in each of the above-entitled proceedings, issued -by a justice of the Supreme Court ánd entered in the office-of the clerk of the county'-of New York on , the 27th day of May, 1907..
    
      Martin W. Littleton, for the appellants.
    
      Terence Farley, for the respondents.
   McLaughlin, J.:

■ Olney, Scannell and Walker were called as witnesses by the commissioners of accounts of the city of New York, who were investigating the office of the president of the borough of Manhattan. They were subordinates, in that;office, Scannell being the superintendent of highways;. Walker, superintendent of supplies, and Olney the chief examiner of highways. After each had been sworn, .certain questions were propounded, which each refused to answer, and thereupon proceedings were taken which resulted in a warrant committing each to jail for .refusing to answer the questions put to him, and directing that he there remain until lle-submitted to answer such questions, unless, in. the meantime, he were discharged according to law, and each has separately appealed.

The order and warrant of commitment in each proceeding should he affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, for the reasons stated in the opinion delivered in Matter of Hertle, In re Ahearn (120 App. Div. 717), decided herewith.

Ingraham, Clarke and Houghton, JJ., concurred; Lambert, J., dissented. ,

Orders affirmed, with ten.dollars costs and disbursements.-  