
    HARRIS DUNWOODY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. NORTH JERSEY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Argued July 11, 1910
    Decided November 14, 1910.
    On error to the Supreme Court, where the following opinion was rendered: , :
    
      Pee Cukiam.
    The plaintiff was riding in his ice wagon, which was being driven by his helper along Hunterdon street, in the city of RTewark, in a northerly direction. When the wagon reached South Orange avenue, along which the defendant’s cars run, plaintiff says he looked out and saw no car approaching until he was almost on the track. The car was then at the left-hand crossing of Hunterdon'street, while plaintiff was at the right-hand crossing. The driver, according to his story, endeavored, when he perceived the danger, to avoid a collision by pulling his horses parallel to the tracks, but before he could do so the car struck one of the horses and the wagon, throwing plaintiff and.the driver out', and injuring them, the horses and the wagon. There was testimony from which a jury might infer that no bell was sounded on the car, that the car was going at a rapid rate of speed, upon a down grade, that .plaintiff’s view as he approached the track was obstructed by an apartment-house on the corner, and that he was driving slowly. A jury viewed the premises, and this presentation of facts was met by a counter presentation by defendant, from which the jury might infer that the plaintiff was negligent in driving as he did, and that his negligence was the proximate cause of his injury.
    The trial court, under this state of facts, properly refused to nonsuit and to direct a verdict, but left the case to the jury with instructions that were ample and enlightening. Our consideration of the case, based upon the refusal of the court to nonsuit and to direct a verdict, which refusals present the grounds for the exceptions upon which this writ of error is based, has led us to conclude that the case presents essentially a 'question of fact, and that there was no error in either ruling of the trial court. Traction Company v. Chenowith, 32 Vroom 554.
    The judgment will be affirmed.
    For the plaintiff in error, Leonard J. Tynan.
    
    For the defendant in error, George M. Titus. '
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Teenoitard, Parker, Yooehees, Bogeet, Yre-DENBUEGH, YROOM, DlLL, CONGDON, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.  