
    William T. Brittingham, Respondent, v. S. B. Penick & Company, Inc., Appellant.
   Application denied, with ten dollars costs. The question whether the plaintiff accepted the order of the defendant for bayberry bark and complied with the conditions of the order is, at the most, a question of fact upon the evidence, and the evidence of the conversation over the telephone, excluded by the court over defendant’s objection and exception, is not of sufficient materiality to justify review by the Appellate Division. (Handy v. Butler, 183 App. Div 359.)  