
    BELL, Appellant, v. RICHARDS, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
    December 28, 1906.)
    Action by Sidney Bell against Morris P. Richards.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Held that, while the statute has a broader significance than indicated in the memorandum of the trial court, we think it does pot apply to a case like the one at bar. where the party sought to be charged obtained possession of the cans lawfully and with the consent of the owner.

WILLIAMS, J.,

dissents, upon the ground that the trial court and the majority of this court place an improper construction upon the statute, and that under the evidence the case was one for the jury. SPRING, J., also dissents.  