alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jerry Colen","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jcolen\/","title":"Amir H. Deylami","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zMZwApWmQu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/ames-amir-h-deylami\/\">Amir H. Deylami<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/ames-amir-h-deylami\/embed\/#?secret=zMZwApWmQu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Amir H. Deylami” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zMZwApWmQu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/adeylami.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
TORBIO ALVARADO

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4012

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed November 1, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Lafayette County

. Darren K. Jackson , Judge

.

Torbio Alvarado, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attor ney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
H. Res. 228

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 16, 1997.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the bill (H.R. 2016) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure

for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points of order

against the conference report and against its consideration

are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

Attest:

Clerk.
H. Res. 221

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 5, 1997.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES:

Mr. Sherman of California.

Attest:

Clerk.
9441.

#### King *et al. v.*Rodgers.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Motion to amend decree; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Howard. March 1, 19Í7.

*Hatcher & Hatcher,*for plaintiffs in error.

*A. W. Cozart, J. H. Chapman,*contra.

Wade, C. J.

1. A judgment may be amended by order of the court, to make it conform to the verdict upon which it is predicated (Civil Code of 1910, § 5697) ; and such an amendment may be made after the expiration of the term at which the judgment was entered *(Irby*v. *Brown,*59 *Ga.*597); though it is otherwise as to tl\e amendment of a judgment on the merits of a cause, where it is sought to amend after adjournment of such term, by reason of facts or conditions subsequently occurring. *Richards*v. *McHan,*139 *Ga.*37 (76 S. E. 382). “The rule has always been recognized in this State that a judgment may be amended to conform to the verdict and pleadings at a subsequent term. *Dennis*v. *Colley,*112 *Ga.*114 (37 S. E. 119).” *Scarborough*v. *Merchants & Farmers Bank,*131 *Ga.*590, 591 (62 S. E. 1040). See also *Rucker*v. *Williams,*129 *Ga.*828 (60 S. E. 155)‘.

2. The bill of exceptions in this case was sued out to the Supreme Court, upon the idea that the proceeding in the lower court was an equitable one, and the judgment amended by the order of the trial court a decree in equity. The Supreme Court transferred the case to this court, holding that the pleadings upon which the ease was tried amounted merely to an action at l&w,' and that, owing to' the nature of the case, the judgment allowing an amendment to the former judgment was not a judgment in an equity case. *King*v. *Rodgers,*147 *Ga.*464 (94 S. E. 580). The judgment amended being merely a common-law judgment, and the amendment complained of merely making the judgment conform to the verdict, the trial judge did hot err in allowing the amendment. . *Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins an'd Luke, JJ.\ concur.*
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Veronica Flora Collins, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-1600-PHX-GMS

DETENTION ORDER 

 On August 24, 2016, defendant, Veronica Flora Collins, appeared before this 

Court on a petition to revoke conditions of release and submitted the issue to the Court. 

The Court considered the information provided to the Court in determining whether the 

defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has violated 

the conditions of release and that there is no condition or combination of conditions 

available to the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 25th day of August, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cr-01600-GMS Document 23 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Burggraf, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-00378-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

The Court, having considered the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal of Bank of 

America, N.A. with Prejudice, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, with 

prejudice, against Defendant Bank of America, N.A., each party to bear its own costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 7th day of October, 2016. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00378-SRB Document 46 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 1
Greg Abbot Attorney General 

for the State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 11, 2015

No. 04-14-00791-CV

Michael Thomas PAUL,

Appellant

v.

GREG ABBOT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-CI-16843

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On January 28, 2015, we issued an opinion and judgment dismissing this appeal. On 

February 10, 2015, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing 

en banc. On February 13, 2015, we issued an order granting appellant’s motion for extension of 

time to file a motion for rehearing to March 16, 2015. 

On February 26, 2015, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment in this court.

Appellant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
---



| |                                   
| | ----------------------------------
| | 900  688 West Hastings St.       
| | Vancouver, BC V6B 1P1
      Canada
| | Phone: (604) 688-9427             
| | Fax: (604) 688-9426               

Exhibit 99.10

CONSENT OF TECHNICAL REPORT AUTHOR

Reference is made to the technical report entitled NI 43-101
Technical Report, Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp., Ketza River Project, Yukon Territory,
Canada, dated June 28, 2011, which the undersigned has prepared (the
**Technical Report**). The undersigned hereby consents to the
written disclosure of extracts therefrom or summaries thereof, either directly
or as incorporated by reference, in the annual information form of Veris Gold
Corp. (the **Corporation**) dated March 28, 2013 and the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012. The undersigned further consents to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-171775) and the Registration
Statement on Form F-10 (No. 333-184496), as amended or supplemented, of the
Corporation of the extracts from, or summaries of, the Technical Report.







/s/ Todd W.
JohnsonTodd W. Johnson, P.E. March 28, 2013

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ERICK J. WYATTE,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Defendant Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 387, 2020

§

§

§

§ Court Below–Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 1703006467 (K)

§ 

§

Submitted: January 19, 2021

 Decided: February 3, 2021

ORDER

On November 13, 2020, the appellant, Erick J. Wyatte, filed a notice of appeal 

from an October 13, 2020 Superior Court sentencing order. Under Supreme Court 

Rule 6, a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before November 12, 

2020.

1

 On January 4, 2021, the Clerk re-issued,

2 by certified mail, a notice directing 

Wyatte to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. 

Wyatte received the notice on January 8, 2021. A timely response was due on or 

1 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(iii).

2 On December 8, 2020, the Clerk issued a notice to show cause to Wyatte that was returned as 

undeliverable to the Court on December 30, 2020.
2

before January 18, 2021. To date, Wyatte has not responded to the notice to show 

cause. Therefore, dismissal of the appeal is deemed unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

_____/s/ Karen L. Valihura_________

Justice
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anna C. Heiney","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aheiney\/","title":"Scott Ede","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3crFRvo1Mz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/scott-ede\/\">Scott Ede<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/scott-ede\/embed\/#?secret=3crFRvo1Mz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Scott Ede” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3crFRvo1Mz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/cropped-nasa_meatball.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
Exhibit 10.73


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT

TO

TERM LOAN NOTE


 


This Fourth Amendment to Term Loan Note (“Amendment”) is entered into
as of September 24, 2003, between Comerica Bank, successor-by-merger to
Comerica Bank-California, successor-by-merger to Imperial Bank (the “Bank”),
and Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Borrower”).


 


RECITALS


 


This Amendment is being entered into in reference to the following
facts:


 


The Borrower and the Bank entered into a Term Loan Note, dated as of
October 25, 2000, in the original principal sum of $5,000,000 (as
modified, amended, and supplemented to the date hereof, the “Note”), the
outstanding principal balance of which is, as of the date hereof,
$1,862,682.33. Capitalized terms used, but not defined herein, shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the Note. The Bank and the Borrower desire to
amend the Note in certain respects subject to the terms and conditions hereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


ARTICLE 1 - AMENDMENTS


 


1.1                                 Amendment
of Third Paragraph.                     The
third paragraph of the Note is hereby amended and restated to read in its
entirety as follows:


 


“Unless sooner due and payable
under the provisions of the Credit Agreement, the principal amount of this Note
shall be payable in equal consecutive monthly installments of $100,000 each,
commencing on August 12, 2002, and continuing on the 12th day
of each succeeding month until the Maturity Date at which time the entire
unpaid principal balance of the Term Loan shall be due and payable in full.”


 


ARTICLE 2 - REPRESENTATIONS AND
WARRANTIES


 


In order to induce the Bank to enter into this Amendment, the Borrower
represents, warrants, and covenants to the Bank as follows.


 


2.1                                 Borrower’s
Representations and Warranties.  
The Borrower has the power and authority and has taken all action
necessary to execute, deliver and perform this Amendment and all other
agreements and instruments executed or delivered to be executed or delivered in
connection herewith and therewith and this Amendment and such other agreements
and instruments constitute the valid, binding and enforceable obligations of
the Borrower.


 


1

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date first above
written.


 


	
  “PAYEE”

  	
  “MAKER”

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Comerica Bank

  	
  Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Stephanie D. McElroy

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ R. Stewart Kahn

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Stephanie D. McElroy,

  	
   

  	
   R. Stewart Kahn,

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President

  	
   

  	
   Executive Vice President

  
						



 


2
Case 2:16-cr-00089-NVW Document 4 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00089-NVW Document 4 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-cr-00089-NVW Document 4 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Robert H. Fish *v.*B. Glass.

Action — Cause of — Necessary Facts.

A joint judgment against True, as principal and Fish as surety in a note, was replevied. True, without making Fish a party, enjoined the enforcement of the replevin bond; and appellant instituted suit as bondsman for True, against Fish, former bondsman: Held not to constitute a cause of action.

Same — Liability on Bond — Parties.

A bondsman in a replevin suit, is released from liability, when an injunction, with others as bondsmen thereon is issued to restrain its operation, and the former bondsman is not made a party to the injunction suit.

Same.

The law cannot presume that the injunction was not prejudicial to the former bondsman, and against his will.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

July 1, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

A joint judgment against True and Fish on a note in which Fish was True’s surety, was replevied by them as principals and by Jackson as their surety. True, without making Fish a party, enjoined the enforcement of the replevin bond, and the appellee, Glass, was the only surety in the injunction bond.

On the dissolution of the injunction, a judgment obtained against Glass on the injunction bond was replevied and finally paid off by Glass. Thereupon Glass filed a petition against True and one Gaines, as True’s debtor, summonsed as garnishee. True being insolvent, and Gaines admitting an indebtedness of only $18, Glass filed an amended petition against Fish, claiming a judgment against him on the foregoing facts only. And Fish failing to answer, judgment was rendered against him for the amount paid by Glass.

The facts, as charged and tacitly admitted, showed that Fish *178had been exonerated by Glass’ injunction and replevin bonds; and there is no allegation that would imply a liability to Glass on any other ground.

*Scott, for appellant.*

*Lillard, for appellee.*

The law would not imply such liability from the facts as charged and admitted. The injunction may have been prejudicial to Fish and against his' will.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a dismission of the petition against Fish unless it shall be so amended as to show a cause of action against him.
SWORN CERTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF 

GROUPON, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

I, Lazar Macovski, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed the Complaint and authorize its filing and/or the filing of a Lead 

 Plaintiff motion on my behalf. 

2. I did not purchase the Groupon, Inc. securities that are the subject of this action at 

the direction of plaintiff’s counsel or in order to participate in any private action 

arising under this title. 

3. I am willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class and will testify 

at deposition and trial, if necessary. 

4. My transactions in Groupon, Inc. securities during the Class Period set forth in 

the Complaint are as follows: 

 

 (See attached transactions) 

5. I have not sought to serve, nor served, as a representative party on behalf of a 

class under this title during the last three years, except for the following: 

6. I will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party, except to 

receive my pro rata share of any recovery or as ordered or approved by the court, 

including the award to a representative plaintiff of reasonable costs and expenses 

(including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the class. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing are true and correct statements. 

 ________________ _________________________________________ 

 Date Lazar Macovski 

4/24/2020

Case: 1:20-cv-02581 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:18
Date Transaction Type Quantity Unit Price

1/8/2020 Bought 1,700 $2.4167

1/24/2020 Sold -2,500 $2.9500

1/24/2020 Sold -500 $2.9450

2/6/2020 Bought 1,000 $3.1274

2/18/2020 Bought 100 $3.0699

2/18/2020 Bought 9,900 $3.0700

Lazar Macovski's Transactions in Groupon, Inc. (GRPN)

Case: 1:20-cv-02581 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 04/28/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:19
#### Betsy Adams *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Instructions—Misdemeanors.

In- prosecutions for misdemeanors, as well as felonies, the accused should not be convicted on a preponderance of testimony if the jury have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Indictment — Law—Question for Court.

It is not necessary to allege in an indictment the existence of the law under which it is made; that is a question for the court.

APPEAL PROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1871,

Opinion op the Court by

Ohiep Justice Pryor :

The instructions in this case are necessarily misleading. They authorized the conviction of the appellant upon a mere preponderance of testimony in favor of her guilt.

In prosecutions for misdemeanors, as well as for felonies, the accused should not be convicted if the jury, from all the evidence, entertain a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Criminal Code, section 236.

The instructions given in this case should have been modified to this extent.

The indictment is sufficient. It was not necessary to allege that the act of March 21st, 1810; had been ratified by a vote of the people of Rockcastle county. The existence of the law under which the indictment was formed is a question to be determined by the court, and not by the jury.

*609
      *Garter, for appellant.*

*A. G., for appellee.*

For the reason indicated, however, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
#### Simon J. Lapof, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Rigerman, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 5, 1926.

Municipal Court of City of New York — costs — dismissal of complaint for lack of jurisdiction is trial within meaning of Municipal Court Code, § 164, subd. 7 — error for trial court to strike out items covering costs provided for in said subdivision.

The dismissal of a complaint in an action in the Municipal Court of the City of New York for lack of jurisdiction is a trial within the meaning of subdivision 7 of section 164 of the Municipal Court Code, and the costs provided for .therein follow as a matter of law; therefore, it was error for the trial court to strike from defendant’s judgment an item covering costs predicated on the amount recited in the summons.

*570Appeal from an order granting plaintiff's motion for the retaxation of costs to the extent that the costs taxed be stricken from the judgment on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to grant such costs.

*Isidor Tow,*for the appellant.

*Benjamin Koenigsberg,*for the respondent.

Delehanty, J.

The action was brought to take and state an account. On the trial the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter. The costs were taxed at sixty-five dollars based on the amount set forth in the summons. That a court has the power to award' costs where the action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction is beyond question. *(Day*v. *Sun Insurance Office,*40 App. Div. 305; affd., on opinion below, 167 N. Y. 543; *Seacoast Trust Co.*v. *Mugman,*184 App. Div. 895.)

A dismissal of the case at the trial for lack of jurisdiction was a trial within the purview of subdivision 7 of section 164 of the New York City Municipal Court Code and the statutory costs therein provided followed as matter of course. The court below, therefore, erred in striking out the costs as fixed in the judgment.

The order should be reversed and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and motion denied.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.