
    ABRAHAM RICH, Jr., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES H. LYLES, et al., Defendants and Appellants.
    Before Van Vorst and Speir, JJ.
    
      Decided May 16, 1879
    Appeal by defendant from judgment and from order denying motion for new trial.
    In this case the plaintiff agreed to deliver to the defendant at Havana, Cuba, a specified quantity of “ good olear ice. ’ ’ at an agreed price, for which plaintiff recovered judgment herein.
    On the trial there was evidence on behalf of plaintiff that the ice was in good condition at the time of shipment, in Maine, and there was a conflict of testimony as to its condition and quality when delivered. The defendant offered to show by the testimony of experts that ice under certain condition is subject to a peculiar change called “ striking,” which greatly diminishes its value, rendering it no longer good clear ice, and which is more difficult of detection and deceptive in appearance than ordinary changes.
    The principal question involved herein is as to the admissibility of this testimony, which was excluded on the trial.
    
      Wilson & Wallis, attorneys, and Luther R. Marsh, of counsel, for appellants.
    
      Benedict, Taft & Benedict, attorneys, and Addison Brown, of counsel, for respondents.
   Speir, J.,

wrote for reversal and new trial.

Van Vorst, J., concurred.  