
    FRIEDMAN v. YAMNER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 17, 1906.)
    Evidence—Conclusions.
    The testimony of witness giving in detail a conversation showing a monthly letting cannot be overcome by his conclusion, in another part of his testimony, which is merely the construction he put on the conversation, that there was a verbal lease for a year.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.
    Action by Cilly Friedman against Sussman Yamner. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    
      Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.
    Max Brown, for appellant.
    Emanuel I. Silberstein, for respondent.
   SCOTT, P. J.

I can find no evidence that a lease was made for a year. - The evidence of the witness Harry Friedman, where he gives in detail the conversation with defendant, shows a monthly letting. This cannot be changed to a lease for a year by the witness’ conclusion in another part of his testimony that the defendant took a verbal lease for a year. This is merely the construction he puts on the conversation, which he detailed previously, and which shows a monthly letting.

The complaint should have been dismissed, and the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  