
    CLAYTON L. ANDREWS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR (PLAINTIFF BELOW), v. THE CAMDEN AND SUBURBAN RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR (DEFENDANT BELOW).
    Submitted July 9, 1906 —
    Decided March 4, 1907.
    On error to the. Supreme Court.
    For the plaintiff in error, Edward Ambler Armstrong.'
    
    For the defendant in error, Samuel H. Richards.
    
   Per Curiam.

The assignments of error argued before us are conspicuously lacking in merit. The testimony which it is contended was improperly received was clearly. competent, and if the instruction to the jury, as to the method by which they should admeasure the damages in case their verdict .should be for the plaintiff, was inaccurate in the respect pointed out in the assignment, the error was harmful to the plaintiff below rather than to the defendant. ■

The j udgment under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance — Tn® Chancellor, Chief Justice, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze; Reed, Trenchard, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Green, Dill, J.J. 14.

For reversal — None.  