
    PHILIP VISCIDI AND WIFE, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR, v. HENRY KOCH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 11, 1911
    Decided March 4, 1912.
    On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion was expressed in the following memorandum:
    “Pee Curiam.
    “A landlord’s action on the lease for failure of the tenant to keep the premises in 'as good repair as he received them barring wear and tear from reasonable use, was tried without a jury before the District Court, which gave a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $250 which is supported by testimony.
    “There was, therefore, no error in refusing to nonsuit the plaintiff upon grounds which, if well taken, went not to his right of action but only to his measure of damage. The amendment of the declaration worked no legal injury to the defendant who made no. motion for a continuance based upon an allegation of surprise. We find no error in the court’s rulings upon the admission or rejection of testimony.
    “The judgment of the Second District Court of Newark is affirmed.”
    For the plaintiff in error, William Greenfield.
    
    For the defendant in error, Benjamin M. Weinberg.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Trenchaed, Parvee, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogbrt, Vre-DENBURGH, VROOM, CONGDON, WHITE, TREACY, JJ. 13.

For reversal—None.  