G-iegebice, J.
The notice of motion was made returnable at Chambers upon the 2d day of September, 1895, which was. a legal holiday, being the first Monday of September, known as Labor Day. Laws of 1892, chap. 677, § 24. With regard to the transaction of business “ in public offices,” such a day is assimilated in nature to Sunday (Laws of 1892, chap. 681, § 41); -but while the courts cannot sit for the purpose of hearing motions upon Sunday (Code Civ. Proc. § 6), and a notice returnable upon that day is void (Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 7 Abb. 204), yet it has been held that statutes similar to that above cited, as to “ public offices,” do not have bearing (upon the courts. People ex rel. Fulton v. Suprs. of Oswego, 50 Hun, 105; People v. Kearney, 47 id. 129, reversed upon another point, 110 N. Y. 188; While it is the custom of the ■court to adjourn upon the days enumerated in the act of 1892 ¡as holidays (Chap. 677, § 24), yet the legal effect of a public holiday is a matter resting entirely upon the statute, and I am constrained to hold that the first Monday of September is not a •dies non with regard to the return of process, and that in the ¡absence of a judge at Chambers, a motion such as that before me stands over, as of course, until the next day. Mathis v. Vail, 10 How. 458. Motion granted.
Motion granted.