
    HENRY H. CLARK and ALFRED M. BARBER, Respondents, v. BENJAMIN SHUMAN, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
    
      Partnership—Evidence—when admission of erroneous, not ground for new trial.
    
    The plaintiff sued defendants for a bill of corn, joining Shuman, and alleging that he was a partner in the business of running a distillery, which Shuman denied. A witness was asked, “ What information, if any, did you get in connection with Shuman’s connection with this case?” The defendant’s objection was overruled and witness answered, “ I learned that this gentleman, Mr. Shuman, was actively" engaged with the institution in some way—so much so that I had knowledge enough to make me believe he was a partner.” Held, that, considered by itself, the question was objectionable; but that Shuman having testified that he was actively engaged in the business, but for a commission and not as partner, and the admission of the question being not necessarily an admission of the latter part of the answer, which might have been stricken out on motion, and the first part of the answer being borne out by all the testimony on each side, the question and answer were not of a kind to mislead the jury.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered on the verdict of a jury at the Orange Circuit.
    
      Joseph Bell, for the appellants.
    
      Groo & Wiggins, for the respondents.
   Opinion by Tappen, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappen and Talcott, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  