
    The Transcendent Light Co., Appellant, v. Thomas Steitz, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    June, 1901.)
    Municipal Court of the city of New York—Plaintiff’s right to discontinue.
    
      Semble, that where a plaintiff is refused leave to discontinue an action in the Municipal Court of the city of New York at the close of his testimony, the refusal is reversible' error.
    Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in the ¡Municipal Court of the city „ of Hew York, second district, borough of Manhattan.
    Herbert J. Hindes, for appellant.
    Aaron Morris, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff asked leave to discontinue at the close of the testimony and such leave was refused. If exception had been taken to this ruling, judgment would have to be reversed. Rothenberg v. Filarsky, 30 Misc. Rep. 610. Ho exception was taken, and plaintiff’s omission- in this respect is fatal.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  