
    HANSON et al. v. KAPLAN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 12, 1900.)
    Appeal—Review—Decisions—Conclusiveness.
    A decision based on conflicting evidence will hot be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Sixth district. Action by Harry D. Hanson and another against Joseph Kaplan. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before TEUAX, P. J., and DUGRO and SCOTT, JJ.
    H. Levor, for appellant.
    La Fetra & Glaze, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

There is a direct conflict of evidence here. This conflict has been decided by. the justice who tried the case, and with Ms decision we shall not interfere. The exceptions on pages 51-53, 58, 71, and 77 of the stenographer’s minutes are not well taken. If the defendant employed the plaintiffs and promised to pay them, it is immaterial to whom the horses belonged.

Judgment affirmed, with fcosts.  