
    CLEVELAND, Appellant, v. CROMWELL, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Divi- ) sion, Second Department.
    November 23, 1910.)
    Action by Wilson A. Cleveland against George i 'Cromwell.
   PER CURIAM.

We are of opinion that the I evidence of employment by the plaintiff of the 1 defendant as an attorney to represent him in the criminal proceedings is such that the case ’ must be submitted to a jury. For that reai son, and on the authority of Cleveland v. Cromwell, 110 App. Div. 82, 96 N. Y. Supp. 475, and Cleveland v. Cromwell, 128 App. Div. 237, 112 N. Y. Supp. 643, the judgment is reversed on reargument, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. See, also, supra.

JENKS and RICH, JJ.,

dissent, on the ground that the evidence in this record did not require the submission of the case to the jury, and that in any event the alleged negligence of the defendant was not the proximate cause of the injury.  