
    CHARLES F. CONNOLLY, Respondent, v. HENRY F. HAMILL, Appellant.
    
      Contract—construction of, province of cowrt and not of jury.
    
    This action was brought to recover for certain iron which the plaintiff alleged he had sold and shipped to the defendant at New York, in conformity with an agreement entered into betvreen them. The defendant claimed that as there had been an unreasonable delay in the delivery of the iron, he was not bound to receive it. That the construction of the contract was for the jury, and that the court erred in taking it from them. The court, after a review of the evidence, was of opinion that it was for the court, and not the jury, to construe the written contract, and also to pass upon the effect of the other evidence in the case.
    
      John E. Burrill, for the appellant.
    
      Scudder & Candor, for the respondent.
   Opinion by Westbbook, J.

Daniels, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.  