
    BUTLER v. THIRD AVE. R. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    February 26, 1896.)
    Appeal—Affirmance.
    In an action for injuries, where the evidence is conflicting, but is sufficient to warrant a finding that the injuries complained of were the result of defendant’s negligence' and that plaintiff was free from fault, a judgment for plaintiff will be affirmed.
    Appeal from Eleventh district court.
    Action by James Butler against the Third Avenue Railroad Company for personal injuries caused by defendant’s negligence. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before HcADAM and BISCHOFF, JJ.
    Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson, for appellant.
    John H. Rogan, for respondent.
   PEE CURIAM.

The return shows the usual conflict of evidence found in negligence cases. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the justice in finding that the injuries complained of were the result of the defendant’s negligence, and that the plaintiff was free from fault. The damages allowed were fully substantiated. We find no error. -

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  