
    SMITH v. DROUGHT.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    March 28, 1899.)
    Action between one Smith and one Drought. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Venino & Siehel, for appellant. Wm. F. Clare, for respondent.
   HASGALL, J.

We find that no error calling for reversal was committed upon the trial. The question of interest on the plaintiff’s claim, after elimination therefrom of the item of $25 for sideboard, was agreed upon as amounting to $40, so that the verdict seems to be at the correct ■figure. To all the material points raised by the appellant, upon his argument and brief, we think that the cases of Remington v. Palmer, 62 N. Y. 31, and Murdock v. Gilchrist, 52 N. Y. 242, are a complete answer. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs and disbursements. FITZSIMONS, C. J., concurs.  