
    Pierre M. Brown, Respondent, v. Hyman Rosenson and Samuel Wolfson, Appellants.
   Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, upon the ground that the uncontradicted evidence is that the defendants falsely represented as to the car “that they were thoroughly acquainted with it and knew its condition and that the machinery was in perfect condition and would need no repairing, and that said automobile needed no overhauling.” Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.  