
    CUNNINGHAM v. HEIDELBURGER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    October 27, 1905.)
    Trial—Conduct ox Counsel—Questions to Jurors.
    In an action for injuries, it was error for plaintiff’s counsel, on the examination of a juror, to ask him whether he knew a certain person, “attorney for the Fidelity Insurance Company in this case.”
    Appeal from City Court of New York.
    Action by Mamie Cunningham against Joseph Heidelburger. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    
      Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.
    Richard B. Aldcroft and James B. Henney, for appellant.
    Henry M. Heymann, for respondent.
   BISCHOFF, J.

The question asked by plaintiff’s counsel, in the course of his examination of jurors, “Do you know Mr. Frank V. Johnson, attorney for the Fidelity Insurance Company in this case?” was most prejudicial in character, and, the objectionable matter having been introduced in such a way as to negative any legitimate purpose, a new trial should be had, in tíre interests of substantial justice. Manigold v. B. R. T. Co., 81 App. Div. 381, 80 N. Y. Supp. 861; Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507, 65 N. E. 494; Grant v. N. R. S. Co., 100 App. Div. 234, 237, 91 N. Y. Supp. 805; Lipschutz v. Ross (Sup.) 84 N. Y. Supp. 632 The verdict was not necessarily excessive, if the jury believed that the injury was permanent; but, in view of the amount awarded and of the nature of the proof to support it, we cannot say that the result was probably reached without regard to the sinister influence of counsel’s suggestion. Since the necessity for this appeal has arisen solely through the reprehensible practice of plaintiff’s counsel, we impose costs absolutely, so far as accrued.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial ordered. All concur.  