The ear sold in September, 1920, was model forty-six for the year 1921. Proof of a drop of price in model forty-six for the year 1922 was not proof of a decrease in price of the article sold. The defendant was, therefore, entitled to a directed verdict. As the jury found only such a verdict as should have been directed, the unnecessary and improper remarks made by defendant’s counsel were harmless. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.