
    Morritz Amsterdam, Plaintiff, Respondent, v. Benjamin Gold, Defendant, and Harry Pacht, Defendant, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    June 3, 1924.
    Bills and notes — evidence — action on promissory note — note lost and could not be produced — reversible error to permit paying teller of bank to testify as to contents of note in record made by notary public — testimony incompetent.
    In an action on a promissory note, which was lost and could not be produced, it was reversible error to permit a paying teller of a bank to testify, over defendant’s objection and exception, to a statement of the contents of the note contained in a record made, not by him, but by a notary public connected with the bank, since such testimony was incompetent.
    Appeal by defendant Harry Pacht from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, second district, rendered in favor of plaintiff.
    
      Bernstein & Salkin (A. Loeb Salkin, of counsel), for the appellant.
    ' Leo Rocklin, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This action is on a promissory note. On the trial it developed that the note was lost and could not be produced.

Over the objection and exception of defendant’s counsel, the paying teller of the Nassau National Bank was permitted to testify to a statement of the contents of the note contained in a record made, not by him, but by a notary connected with the bank. This testimony was incompetent, and should have been excluded.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Gavegan and Mitchell, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.  