
    SHAFF v. SCHLACHETZKY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    June 14, 1901.)
    Contract of Employment—Action fob Bbeach—Evidence.
    Evidence of the terms of a contract of employment between a master and employes other than plaintiff is not admissible in an action by a servant against the master for a breach of a contract of employment, in which the terms of the contract are in issue.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan.
    Action by Henry Shafí against Israel D. Sehlachetzky for the breach of a contract of employment. From a judgment of the municipal court in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and HIRSCHBERG, JERKS, and SEWELL, JJ.
    Abraham H. Sarasohn, for appellant.
    Henry A. Powell, for respondent.
   JERKS, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment against him upon an alleged breach of his contract of employment of the plaintiff. The sole question litigated was whether such employment was for a certain period, within which the plaintiff was discharged, or by the week. This presented a fair issue of fact for the court, and the testimony before us would not warrant a disturbance of its decision. The appellant insists that the court erred in excluding his testimony offered to show the terms of his employment of his workmen other than the plaintiff. I think that the ruling was right. Lichtenhein v. Fisher, 6 App. Div. 385, 39 N. Y. Supp. 553; 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th Ed.) § 52, and case cited.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.  