
    Charles Hoffman et al., Resp’t, v. Manhattan Ry. Co. et al., App’lts.
    Sup. Ct. 1 D.
    June 14, 1895.
    
      K. C. Morhous, for app’lts; E. M. Felt, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

— We find no evidence justifying the large awards made in this action. What evidence was offered upon the part of the plaintiffs is unsatisfactory and inconclusive, and affords no sufficient basis for the judgment which has been entered. We think therefore, that the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.  