
    REISS v. KIENLE.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 19, 1904.)
    1. Trial—Instructions—Instruction on Effect of Verdict.
    An instruction that, if the jury should render a verdict against defendant, he would be incarcerated, was not erroneous.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.
    Action by Meyer R. Reiss against Charles H. Kienle. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and TRUAX and SCOTT, JJ.
    Engel, Engel & Oppenheimer, for appellant.
    F. V. S. Oliver, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The questions of fact in the case were fairly presented to the jury. The trial judge did not charge that, if the jury ■ found a verdict for the defendant, it must bear in mind that he is a poor man, “and can be incarcerated,” and therefore the exception was not well taken. The charge was that, even if the defendant were a poor man, and not able to pay the amount of the recovery, “if you give him a verdict he could be incarcerated until he does pay.” The charge was meaningless. But if we suppose that the judge intended to charge that, if the jury should render a verdict against the defendant, he would be incarcerated such charge was not erroneous. Keller v. Strasburger, 90 N. Y. 379.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.  