
    HEITLER et al., Respondents, v. DICK-OFF, Appellant.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May, 1901.)
    Action by Samuel Heitler and others against Joseph Diekoff.
    Elias Rosenthal, for appellant, i
   PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s statement set forth in the affidavit, after having been asked for an explanation, is sufficient proof of the falsity of the representation made and relied upon, and entitles plaintiffs to the order appealed from. The ground of the arrest is fraud, and is sufficiently stated in the order. The complaint sufficiently" states the sale and jjelivery of the goods. The order appealed from must be affirmed, but, in view of the fact that the respondents did not appear in the -hearing or file a brief, without costs. Order affirmed, without costs.  