
    DAVID H. DE LEON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL ECHEVERRIA, Defendant and Appellant.
    Before Sedgwick and Freedman, JJ.
    
      Decided June 13, 1879.
    In this case the court held, the plaintiff having been unwarrantably discharged, his damages are,prima facie, “the amount of wages for the Mil term ” (Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362).
    On the trial the defendant requested the court to charge, as affecting the question whether there was a hiring for a year, that the jury should look at all “ the probabilities of the cuse, and in so doing consider the absence of any protest on the part of the plaintiff, when he was discharged.” The court so instructed, adding: “You will also consider that that was not made a point of by the defendants at the time.” Held, that the addition did not constitute error; if it was fair to look at plaintiff’s failure to insist on his rights under the contract, as he claimed it was, it was equally fair to consider the defendant’s attitude, by silence or otherwise.
    The case contains no exceptions to the charge, and the court did not specifically consider the points raised in relation thereto, by appellant on the appeal ; but held, that as a whole, it presents no ground upon which a new trial can be granted.
    Appeal from' judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      Coudert Bros., for appellants.
    
      Lockwood & Lockwood, attorneys, and James Clark, of counsel, for respondents.
   Freedman, J.,

wrote for affirmance, with costs, holding in substance as above.

Sedgwick, J., concurred. .  