
    Solomon v. Miller.
    
      (Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
    
    January 7,1889.)
    Appeal—Review—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    In an action for injuries caused by the bite of a horse, plaintiff and another witness testified that after the injury defendant stated to them: “I know that horse bites. I have told them not to take him out without a muzzle. ” This was denied by defendant and another witness, and there was evidence that the horse had never-been known to bite, even when teased, and that no muzzle had ever been used on him. Held, that a judgment for plaintiff, on the ground that the horse was accustomed to bite, and that defendant knew it, could not be sustained.
    Appeal from district court.
    Action by Louis ÍSolomon against Leopold Miller and another for damages for being bitten by a horse belonging to defendant Miller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Argued before Van Hoesen, P. J., and Bookstover, J.
    
      G. W. Galinger, for appellant. II. Joseph, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

To prove that the horse was accustomed to bite mankind, the plaintiff and another witness swore that Miller, the defendant, said to them: “I know that horse bites. I have told them not to take him out without a muzzle.” That testimony, if true, would show that the horse was accustomed to bite, arid that the defendant well knew the facts; but we do not believe that it is true. It is most improbable that such an admission should have been made when the defendant knew that a claim for damages on account of the horse’s biting was preferred against him. That the admission was made is denied by the defendant, and by Shafer; and furthermore, there is positive and satisfactory evidence that the horse had never been known to bite, and that no muzzle had ever been used upon him. It was also proved that when the horse was feeding he would not bite, -even when teased. Judgment reversed.  