
    HUBERT v. BEDELL.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    December 12, 1892.)
    1. Personal Injuries—Evidence—Excessive Damages. In an action for personal injuries for being bitten by a dog, the evidence showed that plaintiff’s clothes were, tom, and his right arm lacerated and injured so he could not attend to his business for six or seven" weeks, and that the weekly profits of such business amounted to about $20. Held, that a verdict for $100 was not excessive.
    2. Same—Evidence. In such case it is proper to prove the daily earnings of plaintiff, though such earnings are not pleaded as an element of damage.
    Appeal from circuit court, Rockland county.
    Action by Joseph Hubert against Sarah E. Bedell for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    ■ Plaintiff was invited into defendant’s yard by the manager of her premises to look at some grass he was to have for the cutting. He went through the front gate, and walked to and past the house into the back yard, where the grass was, and where defendant’s manager was waiting for him. While passing through the yard back of the house, a large dog owned by defendant, and kept by her in the yard, jumped on him, tore his coat and vest, and lacerated his right arm. Two witnesses testified that the dog was dangerous, and defendant admitted on the trial that he had bitten a person on her premises before, and that she gave such person five dollars in settlement of the matter. Plaintiff was unable to attend to his usual work of running a peddling wagon for six or seven weeks, being compelled to carry his arm in a sling for that length of time. He did not" plead the loss of his daily earnings as an element of damage, but at the trial he introduced evidence to show what such earnings were. The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff for $100.
    Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and DYKMAN, J.
    Snider & Hopper, for appellant.
    Arthur S. Tompkins, for respondent,
   BARNARD, P. J.

The plaintiff went upon the defendant’s premises to cut grass which had been given him by defendant’s manager for the cutting. Almost as soon as he entered the yard, without any reason, he was savagely attacked by a large dog belonging to the defendant, and bitten severely. The damages were not excessive. It was proper to prove the daily earnings of the plaintiff. Such loss was in-valved in the ordinary and necessary result of an injury, and was not special or peculiar damages which needed being pleaded. Jutte v. Hughes, 67 N. Y. 267. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.  