
    JONES, Respondent, v. L’ECLUSE, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Se ond Department.
    October 8, 1909.)
    Action b Mary E. Jones against Milton L’Eduse.
   PER CURIAM.

The order sets aside a ve diet for the alleged misconduct of a juror. I a brief opinion the learned Special Term fine no irregularity in the conduct of the jurymai and also finds the conduct of the counsel an the witness involved to have been blameles: but holds that “the influence of just such ha] penings is so subtle that it is manifestly di: fieult to weigh its effect.” We think a jud] ment should nqt be destroyed unless the alie influence is manifest, and therefore reverse th order, with $10 costs and disbursements, an reinstate the verdict.

BURR and MILLER, JJ., dissent.  