Filed Date： 6/15/1930
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/27/2024
Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the charge of the trial court as to warning signals by whistle and bell did not contain reversible error under the pleadings, proofs and circumstances of this case, and on the authority of Smith v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. (77 App. Div. 43) and Cepenobwiz v. New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co. (147 id. 188, 193). Present — Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis, Hill and Hasbrouek, JJ.