
    John Cleary, Respondent, v. F. A. Feyl, Appellant.
   —Judgment affirmed, with costs. Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis and Hasbrouck, JJ., concur; Hill, J., dissents on the ground that the presumption that defendant’s car was being used with his consent, express or implied, disappeared in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary. (Potts v. Pardee, 220 N. Y. 431.)  