
    Harry Shaff, Respondent, v. Israel D. Schlachetzky, Appellant.
    
      Evidence — action for breach of contract of employment—the master may not show the terms of employment of other servants.
    
    In an action by an employee' against bis employer to recover for an alleged breach of the contract of employment, in which the sole question litigated was whether the plaintiff’s employment was for a certain period or by the week, the defendant is not entitled to show the terms under which his workmen, other than the plaintiff, were employed.
    Appeal by the defendant, Israel D. Schlachetzky, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff.
    
      Abraham H. Sarasohn, for the appellant.
    
      Henry A. Powell, for the respondent.
   Jerks, J.:

The defendant appeals from a judgment against him upon an alleged breach of his contract of employment of the plaintiff. The sole question litigated was whether such employment was for a certain period, within which the plaintiff was discharged, or by the week. This presented a fair issue of fact for the court, and the testimony before us would not warrant a disturbance of its decision. The appellant insists that the court erred in excluding his testimony offered to show the terms of his employment of his workmen other than the plaintiff. I think that the ruling was right. (Lichtenhem v. Fisher, 6 App. Div. 385 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. [15th ed.] § 52 and case cited.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except Woodward, J., absent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.  