
    Margaret Reed, Resp’t, v. Third Avenue R. Co., App’lt.
    N. Y. C. C.
    November 26, 1895.
    
      Eoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson, for app’lt; M. P. O’Connor, for resp’t.
   McCarthy, J.

From a careful examination of the evidence, we think it is shown that the defendant was not alone negligent, but the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and therefore cannot recover. It is unfortunate that the plaintiff should be hurt, but, sincé we must obey the law, we are not permitted to exercise our sympathy. Perhaps on a new trial the plaintiff may be able to explain the discrepancies. It is unnecessary to cite authorities. Judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.  