
    Eugene E. Seaman, App’lt, v. John P. Ficken, Resp’t.
    B. C. C.
    June 24, 1895.
    
      Jay S. Jones, for app’lt; Jacobs & Butcher, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

— In the case before us, it was just as necessary for the defendant to prove damages as it was to prove the fraud on the part of plaintiff. Testimony as to the value of the lots at Lindenhurst was competent, if given by an expert. We think that Air. McEwen was qualified to give an opinion as to their value, and that the exception at folio 122 of case was well taken. It does not become necessary to examine the other questions in the case. Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to ■abide the event.  