
    SEAMAN v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 28, 1899.)
    Appeal—Review.
    Where, in an action for collision on a highway, plaintiff’s servant testified to circumstances from which his freedom from contributory negligence and defendant’s servant’s negligence might be found, despite the latter’s, contradictory statements, a judgment for plaintiff should not be disturbed.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Seventh district.
    Action by Egbert B. Seaman against the Metropolitan Street-Bail-way Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, find defendant-appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
    Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.
    Ernest F. Eidlitz, for respondent.
   MacLEAN, J.

In this action, brought to recover damages for injuries to a coach which was - struck by a car of the defendant, the plaintiff’s driver testified to circumstances from which, if his testimony was believed, freedom from contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff’s servant, and of negligence on the part of the defendant’s motorman, might be found by the jury, despite the contradictory statements made by defendant’s motorman. The judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury should not be disturbed. -

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

FREEDMAN, P. J., concurs. LEVENTRITT, J., takes no part.  