
    Hugh J. Reilly, Appellant, v. Frank Steinhart, Respondent.
    
      Reilly v. Steinhart, 174 App. Div. 265, affirmed.
    (Argued March 7, 1917;
    decided March 27, 1917.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 10, 1916, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in an action brought to recover the sum of $35,000 and interest as the balance of $50,000 which the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff for an option to purchase certain specified property within a period expiring April 22, 1907. Upon the trial the defendant sought to evade responsibility for the payment of this balance of $35,000 upon the ground that Reilly had misled him by various misrepresentations, principally as to the water power that was to be used to run the railroad, and the major portion of the record is made up of testimony tending to prove the falsity of these alleged representations. He also sought to prevent a recovery upon the ground that the option agreement was made in Cuba, had not been made a “public instrument ” or “protocolized,” as required by the law of Cuba, and contended that, therefore, it was void. (See Reilly v. Steinhart, 217 N. Y. 549.)
    
      William C. Rosenberg and Charles Grossman for appellant.
    
      Morgan J. O’Brien and David T. Davis for respondent.
   Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Crane, JJ. Absent: McLaughlin, J.  