Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the ground that the burden of establishing a violation of the ordinance in cutting a shade tree was upon the plaintiff and whether *800or not the tree in question was a shade tree within the meaning of the ordinance was a question of fact and we cannot say that the decision of the trial justice in favor of the defendant was contrary to the evidence. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Thompson and Crosby, JJ. [139 Misc. 368.]