
    Sam G. Stern et al., App’lts, v. Robert Frommer, Resp’t.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed November 20, 1894.)
    
    1. Tbial—Directing verdict.
    A verdict for the defendant cannot he directed at the close of plaintiff's case.
    
      2. Evidence—Sale.
    Delivery of goods sold may be proved by testimony of the vendor’s salesman that he subsequently saw them in the purchaser’s possession.
    Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict directed by the court in favor of the defendant.
    
      Epstein Bros., for app’lts; Qhas. F. Holm, for resp’t.
   Yah Wyok, J.

At the close of plaintiffs’ case the court directed a verdict for defendant, and on such verdict the judgment was entered from which this appeal is taken. This was error, for at most a. plaintiff can only be nonsuited at the close of his case, and may thereafter being a new action for the same cause, first paying the costs of the action in which he was nonsuited; but not so if the judgment is upon a verdict of the jury, for such judgment is a bar to a subsequent action for the same cause. The plaintiffs’ proof shows that their salesman called at defendant’s saloon at a time when defendant was in charge of his saloon, and took an order for a barrel of whisky for defendant from one Helmuth, then dealing with such salesman as buyer for defendant, and that Helmuth was also defendant’s bookkeeper, at a salary of $10 per week., The plaintiffs made proper effort to prove delivery of this barrel of whisky to defendant, by showing by their salesman that he had subsequently seen the same in defendant’s sa'loon, but, on defendant’s objection, were not allowed to do so, and to all of which plaintiffs excepted. The judgment is re■versed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.  