
    Peter N. Ramsey, Appellant, v. Telemaque T. Timayenis, Respondent.
   Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Brunt, P. J. :

We see no reason for interfering with the order appealed, from or for differing with the conclusions arrived at by the learned judge who heard the motion resulting in the order, and, which are embraced in nis memorandum contained in the record. There seems to he no question whatever but that the contentions; upon the part of the plaintiff are absolutely inconsistent with the statements in writing made by him. The letter of the 20th or July, 1891, in answer to the defendant’s letter of the 17th of July, 1891, is in manifest contradiction to the claims now advanced upon the part of the plaintiff. And it seems to be almost incredible that the plaintiff, after he had learned that he had been swindled in the manner claimed by him upon this application, should have written the letter of tne 3d of February, 1892, months after the advances which formed the subject-matter of this action were made. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  