Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. As the amount of plaintiffs' claim rested on slight evidence of the reasonable value of the work and materials furnished in building the well, we think that the admission of evidence of the reasonable cost of building a like well was within the judicial discretion of the court, and was not error. Having so admitted evidence tending to show that plaintiffs' claim was extravagant, it was error to instruct the jury that they must find the full amount of the claim, or nothing. This error was prejudicial to plaintiffs, for the jury, convinced that plaintiffs' demand was excessive, might have found wholly against them as an alternative to finding the whole amount of an excessive claim. Although the charge was not excepted to, nor any request made on the subject, yet the result reached seems so unjust that we think there should be a new trial. Stapleton, Rich and Blackmar, JJ., concurred; Putnam, J., read to affirm, with whom Jenks, P.J., concurred.