
    FRIEDMAN et al. v. BINDSEIL et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    February 27, 1906.)
    Evidence—Relevancy.
    Where there was no-evidence that certain skins in question had been treated with soda, and defendants admitted that some of the skins had been injured in the dyeing, it was error to admit evidence of one of the defendants as to the possible effect on the skins of the use of soda by the dresser.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth District.
    Action by Bernat Friedman and others against Herman F. Bindséil and another. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
    Reversed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
    Sidney D. Josephthal, for appellants.
    B. Gerson Oppenheim, for respondents.
   SCOTT, P. J.

It was clearly erroneous to have admitted in the first place, and'to have refused to strike out in the second place, the evidence of one of the defendants as to the possible effect upon the skins by the use of soda by the dresser. There is not the slightest evidence of such use, and in the light of defendants’ apparent admission by letter, that some of the skins had been injured in the dyeing, we cannot say that the jury were uninfluenced by the incompetent testimony.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.  