
    Hubert W. Martin, Resp’t, v. Mary E. Coleman, App’lt.
    N, Y. C. C.
    June 25, 1895.
    
      Wells, Waldo & Snedelcer, for app’it; Myron II Oppenheim, for resp’t.
   Newburger, J.

— This is an action brought for damages sustained by the plaintiff on account of water dripping through the ceiling of Iris premises. The premises where the damages occurred is a four-story building, aud at the time of the accident was wholly occupied, one tenant being on each floor. The plaintiff occupied the parlor floor or main floor, as a tailor, the defendant the second floor of the building, as a dressmaker, and for living purposes. On January 6, 1894 (Saturday), the plaintiff closed his place of business. On Monday morning, when plaintiff’s clerk opened the plaintiff’s store about 8 o’clock, water was dripping from ihe ceiling. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered upon such verdict, and from the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, this appeal is taken. The trial justice properly denied the motion for a dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. The testimony of the plaintiff and his attorney as to statements made by the defendant after the overflow required that the case should be submitted to the jury as to the negligence and carelessness of the defendant. The charge of the trial justice was a fair and complete statement of (he law governing cases of this kind, a ;d must have been so viewed by the defendant’s counsel, as there is pot a single exception, nor was any request made by defendant to charge anything in addition. The judgment appealed from must he affirmed, with costs.  