
    John Scanlon, Respondent, v. The Village of Weedsport, Appellant.
    
      Scanlon v. Village of Weedsport, 81 App. Div. 654, affirmed.
    (Argued June 14, 1904;
    decided August 5, 1904.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 17, 1903, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    The following questions were certified :
    “1. Was the new ice which formed on Saturday night, March 10th, 1900, as matter of law, the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident?
    “2. Was the trial court justified in submitting to the jury the question whether the plaintiff slipped and fell upon a ridge of ice that had existed for some time, or upon any new ice that might have formed shortly before the accident ?
    “ 3. Was there any question aj>pearing in the record which should properly have been submitted to the jury?
    “4. Was the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit properly denied ?
    “ 5. Was the defendant’s motion for a new trial properly denied ?
    
      “ G. Did the' court err in excluding the evidence of Clark and Dyer?
    
      “ 7. Should the judgment of the Appellate Division be reversed ? ”
    
      Frederio F. StorJce for appellant.
    
      Frank D. Wright for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs. Questions certified not answered, because as the appeal was from a final judgment the court had no power to certify them; no opinion.

Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, Bartlett, Martin, Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.  