
    HALLWOOD CASH REGISTER CO. v. GREENBERGER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 10, 1904.)
    1. Sale—Action fob Price—Evidence—Sufficiency.
    Defendant signed a contract for the purchase ofa cash register, which was in his place of business at the time. His signature was not that of an inexperienced penman, and there was no pretense that he could not read. Held, that a judgment for defendant in an action to recover on the contract was improper.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
    Action to recover on a written contract for the purchase and sale of a cash register by the Hailwood Cash Register Company against Henry Greenberger. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and FITZGERALD, JJ.
    Spiro & Wasservogel, for appellant.
    Emanuel Klein, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant in person signed the contract, and the signature does not appear to be that of an inexperienced penman. The register in question was in his place of business at' the time. If he did not know what he was signing, that is his fault. He could write, and there is no pretense that he could not read.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant tp abide the event.  