
    ADELAIDE PRAEGER, Respondent v. WILLIAM A. MESTAYER, Appellant.
    
      Evidence.—Breach of contract of employment.
    
    In an action for breach of a contract to employ plaintiff in a theatrical company where there is a material conflict in the testimony of plaintiff and that of defendant as to the duration of the contract of employment, it is competent on the question of the credibility of defendant’s version, to show on his cross-examination that he had employed other members of the company for a stated period, as claimed by plaintiff he had employed her, and that such other member of the company had sued defendant and recovered his compensation.
    Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J.
    
      Decided December 17, 1886.
    Appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $2,552.50 damages for breach of contract.
    The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant as a singer in the defendant’s theatrical company for a term of two seasons, to commence on the 12th day of May, 1884, at a salary of one hundred and twenty-five dollars per week; that she performed for the defendant until June 3, 1884, when she alleges she was denied the privilege of further performing for the defendant. The employment of plaintiff for a stated period was denied by defendant.
    
      Howe & Hummel, for appellant.
    
      Jas. D. McClelland, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The error alleged is the admission by the court on cross-examination of certain testimony of the defendant.

The issue on the trial was as to the terms of the contract between plaintiff and defendant. The questions allowed related to the terms of a contract by defendant with another person, and that such other person had sued him and recovered judgment.

The fact that he had employed other members of the company for a stated period, as claimed by the plaintiff he had employed her, was admissible upon cross-examination, as tending to affect the credibility of the witness’s version of the contract between the plaintiff and the witness; and the fact that such a contract had been made with another person of the company being competent, the other fact that such other person had recovered for his compensation was also, we think, competent on cross-examination.

The case is very different from O’Hagan v. Dillon (76 N. Y. 170), for in that case the evidence that was allowed could have no possible bearing on the credibility of the witness. We think no error was committed and judgment must be affirmed with costs.  