Leaving out of consideration "telegraph cases," as above defined, telegraph companies were concerned in sixteen cases in this volume, electric light companies in eighteen, telephone companies in twenty, and electric railway companies in twenty-five, or nearly one-fourth of the whole number in the volume; a surprising proportion, considering how recent was the general use of the electric railway at the time when these cases arose. The last two opinions reported in this volume relate to an application of electricity, which, while not commercial, is intensely practical, to wit, the infliction by that agency of the death penalty for capital offences, now required by statute in the State of New York. The constitutionality of the law was zealously attacked, and it is thought the decisions of that question by the Court of Appeals of New York and the United States Supreme Court may be appropriate here. A word of explanation as to the plan of reporting may be proper. It is the aim to print every opinion (or the portion of it appropriate to this series), exactly as it was delivered, citations and all, without addition or excision. Therefore, if in the official report (or, if such has not been found, in the volume from which the case is copied, which is always named at the head) a case is cited from one set of unofficial reports, or journal, and no reference made to others in which it may also have been printed, it should be understood that the selection is that of the writer of the opinion (or possibly of the reporter) and not of the editor of this series. So far is this plan of literal copying followed that where the case cited is to be found in this series, that fact is indicated merely by printing its title in full-face type, the reference being inserted at the end of the head-note. Thanks are returned for continued assistance from gentlemen whose names have already been mentioned, as well as valuable suggestions and help from others; all tending to show active and increasing interest in the success of the enterprise. Board of Aldermen of Boston, Suburban L. & P. Co. v 20 504 80 Brashears v. W. U. Tel. Co..... Brush Electric Illum. Co. v. Consol. Tel. & Elec. Subway Co Brush Electric Light Co. v. Jones Bros. Elec. Co.......... Burnett v. W. U. Tel. Co.... Central N. J. Teleph. Co., State, Duke Pros. v... Central Pass. R. R. Co., Louisville Bagging Mfg. Co. v Chase v. W. U. Tel. Co Chesapeake & Pot. Teleph. Co. v. Mackenzie Cincinnati Inclined Ry. Co. v. City & Sub. Tel. Asn.. ..... City of Newton, Thomson-Houston Elec. Light Co. v 701 150 516 491 687 824 546 236 529 .... 462 670 817 196 443 56 231 507 52 City of Richmond.. 556 City & Suburban Tel. Asn., Cincinnati Inclined Ry. Co. v. 443 665 66 v. Westchester Commonwealth v. Charles Smith Congress Spring Co., Consumers' Gas & Elec. Light Co. v. 13 326 211 150 211 618 Cornell v. Detroit Electric Railway Co Crawson v. W. U. Tel. Co...... 486 314 820 Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. v. United Elec. Railway Co Daughtery, Am. Un. Tel. Co. v...... Delaware & A. Tel. &c., Co., State, ex rel. Post. Tel. &c., Co. v. Hudson River Teleph. Co. v. Watervliet Turnpike & R. R. Co.. Kraatz v. Brush Elec. Light Co... 491 Rogers v. W. U. Tel. Co....... Rosentreter, W. U. Tel. Co. v. Saginaw Union Street Ry., Potter v.. Salt Lake City Ry. Co., Rocky Mountain Bell Teleph. Co. v. San Francisco, Electric Improvement Co. v Scranton Elec. Light & Heat Co. v. Scranton Illum. Heat, &c. Co.... Scranton Illum., Heat, &c., Co., Scranton Elec. Light & Heat Co. v.. State, ex rel. Post. Tel. &c. Co. v. Del. & A. Tel., &c. Co... Suburban Light & Power Co. v. Board of Aldermen of Boston. Taylor, W. U. Tel. Co. v. Teleph. & Tel. Construction Co., Chaffee v. Thomson-Houston Elec. Light Co. v. City of Newton... 66 66 Johnson v.. United Elec. Railway Co,, Cumberland Teleph. & Tel. Co. v.. 66 "&c., Shelton v. 66 66 United States Illum. Co. v. Grant... United States v. Union Pacific Ry. Co...... Watervliet Turnpike & R. R. Co., Hudson River Teleph. Co. v.. 66 P |