
    (52 App. Div. 625.)
    MURGATROYD v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD GAS & ELECTRIC LIGHT CO. (two cases).
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
    June 22, 1900.)
    Agency—Evidence of Authority.
    The fact that a gas company authorized a collector to connect a meter with its service was some evidence of his authority to put a meter in the premises of plaintiff’s neighbor, notwithstanding his denial of such authority; .and therefore the question whether he acted within the scope of his authority was properly submitted to the jury, in an action for damages caused by leakage from the meter into plaintiff’s apartments.
    Motion for reargument. Denied. For former opinions, see 64 N. Y. Supp. 1144.
    
      Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and BARTLETT, WOODWARD, HIRtiCHBERG, and JENKS, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The motion for a reargument in these cases is based upon suppositions which have no foundation in fact. The record and briefs, with the cases cited, were carefully examined and considered. The evidence showed that gas manufactured by the de-„ fendant leaked into the plaintiffs’ apartments from a meter put into a neighbor’s premises by one of the defendant’s collectors. We were of the opinion that the fact that the company had placed it in the collector’s power to connect a meter with their service was some evidence of his authority to do what he did, notwithstanding his denial that he had any such authority, and that hence the question whether he acted within the scope of his employment was properly left to the jury by Mr. Justice Gaynor.

Motion for reargument denied.  