
    HORWITZ v. REINERT.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 22, 1903.)
    1. Appeal—Judgment—Evidence—Sufficiency.
    A judgment supported by evidence allowed to go in generally withput objection, and without the taking of a tenable exception, will not be disturbed on appeal, though the evidence is slight.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second Dis- ■ trict.
    Action by Isaac Horwitz against Ferdinand Reinert. From a judg-. ment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
    James E. Smith, for appellant.
    Nathaniel Levy, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for damages to personal property of the plaintiff, whose cart containing notions, fancy goods, and hardware was run down by a wagon belonging to the defendant,, and driven by one of his employés. ' Although resting upon very slight proof, and seemingly for a large amount, the judgment may not be disturbed, as the evidence, slight as it is, was allowed to go in, generally without objection, and without the taking of a tenable exception.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.  