
    ALEXANDER BOTTSTEIN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 9, 1912
    Decided March 3, 1913.
    Oñ error to the Supreme Court, in which the following opinion was filed:
    Per Curiam.
    The only legal errors complained of are the refusal to non-suit the plaintiff and the refusal to find for the defendant. The trial judge found that excessive force was used in ejecting the plaintiff from the train. If there was evidence to justify this finding it is unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiff was rightly on the train or not. The plaintiff testified that the conductor grabbed him, tore his coat, bruised his arm so that he'has had considerable trouble with it ever since and has been doctoring with it; that he pulled him out of the seat by his arms. His brother testified that after the conductor had put the plaintiff off the train he saw a man wearing the uniform of the railroad company with a lantern in-his hand-punch the plaintiff in the nose. There was evidence by the plaintiff ■ himself from which it might be inferred that these statements were exaggerated, and that no more force was used than was necessary. We think it is a question of fact whether excessive force was used, and as the judge found that such was the case, it was not legal error to refuse to nonsuit or to find for the defendant.
    The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs, and judgment may be entered in this court.
    For the defendant in error, Robert S. Hudspeth.
    
    For the plaintiff in error, Collins & Corbin.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Trenchard, Parker, Kaiasch, Booert, Cong-don, Treacy, JJ. 9.

For reversal — None.  