included. But the premises need not be used exclusively for dwelling purposes to come under the protection of the statute. Where a tenant has his office-for instance, a physician-in the same premises where he lives or even where he uses a portion for business and the other for dwelling purposes, he will have the aid of these statutes. Nor is it necessary that the tenant use the entire premises as a dwelling for himself and his family; he may keep roomers and boarders. However, it is a doubtful proposition whether these statutes apply where the tenant conducts the business of a rooming house without himself living on the premises. Hotels containing one hundred and twenty-five rooms or more, or rooms in a lodging or rooming house occupied under a hiring of a week or less are not affected by these statutes; nor are new buildings in the course of construction on September 27, 1921, or erected thereafter. The purpose of this exception is apparent. It was done to encourage the erection of new buildings which is the only effective cure for the evils of the present housing shortage. To further stimulate the building industry an act was passed in September permitting the local authorities of a political subdivision of the state to exempt buildings from local taxation for a period of ten years. Such buildings must be completed since April 1, 1920, or be commenced prior to April 1, 1922. It is quite certain that such an exempting ordinance will soon be enacted in this city. The emergency acts are to remain in effect until November 1, 1922. Chapters 944 and 945 apply to all cities of the first class and the cities in Westchester County. Chapters 942 and 947 apply only to New York City and the Westchester County cities. The hold-over proceedings in the other cities of the first class are governed by Chapter 137 of the April legislation. I am about to close. I fully realize that I have not done justice to the subject assigned to me. I crave your pardon for my inordinately long address. You have listened very patiently and attentively. Will you be good enough to accept my earnest thanks for your great courtesy to me and my renewed apologies for having kept you so long. ADDRESS OF HENRY W. TAFT (of the New York Bar) GENTLEMEN OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION: Your committee first assigned to me the subject of Surrogates' Practice. I was appalled. To assume that I could speak with authority on that intricate subject revived a painful experience of thirty odd years ago when I became entangled in a maze of procedural complications. I had propounded two holographic codicils to the will of a wealthy Amer-. ican who had resided for many years in a foreign country. Without notice to the parties, the surrogate made an order sending the matter to the Court of Common Pleas for trial. A motion there for a commission (the only way the necessary evidence could be obtained) was denied for want of power to issue a commission in a special proceeding. The Surrogate, who had the power in his court, refused to exercise it in a case pending in the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas declined, for want of power, to send the case back to the Surrogate's Court; and an application to the Surrogate for an order taking the case back to his court was also denied for want of jurisdiction. It was thus made impossible to prove the necessary facts; a discontinuance became necessary-and it was granted on a penalty of three hundred and fifty dollars costs. Such are the perils which attend inarticulation of code provisions. May the convention for procedural reform deliver us from them. It may be imprudent for me to advertise an ignorance of surrogates' practice, but in a department of my office a knowledge of it is confidently professed. Indeed, I am so satisfied that some of my associates are experts that |