
    VASSIN v. BUTLER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 23, 1905.)
    Negligence—Evidence.
    Evidence merely that plaintiff was hurt by slipping on ice on defendant’s premises does not show negligence of defendant, it not appearing how long the ice had been there.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District. 1
    Action by Charles Henry Vassin against James Butler. From an order setting aside the verdict for plaintiff, and granting a new trial without costs, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and TRUAX and DOWLING, JJ.
    Noah, Goodman & Rochester (Solomon Goodman, of counsel), for appellant.
    Rollins & Rollins (Theodore H. Lord, of counsel), for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

While the evidence shows that the accident that happened to the plaintiff’s wife happened on the defendant’s premises, it does not show clearly the cause of the happening of that accident. It may have been that the accident happened because the plaintiff’s wife slipped on ice. It does not appear that she slipped through the negligence of the defendant, because it was not shown on the trial how long the ice had remained on the defendant’s premises. We are therefore of the opinion that the order appealed from should be affirmed.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.  