USCA1 Opinion

          November 17, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ___________________


          No. 92-1093

            


                          PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SECURITIES INC.,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   ROBERT BIALKIN,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                  __________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ___________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                         Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
                                              ______________

                                 ___________________

               Robert Bialkin on brief pro se.
               ______________
               Gerald  F. Rath, Michael J. Eisele and Bingham, Dana & Gould
               _______________  _________________     _____________________
          on brief for appellee.



                                  __________________

                                 __________________ 
















                      Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the record
                      __________

            and find no merit in appellant's arguments.  

                      There was  no error in  the challenged  evidentiary

            rulings for the reasons explained in Prudential's brief.  

                      The  district court's findings  are fully supported

            by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous.  

                      As  for  appellant's  claims  that  Prudential  was

            grossly negligent and  that negligence  should bar  recovery,

            appellant  is wrong.  See Restatement (Second) of Torts   540
                                  ___

            (1976) ("The  recipient of a  fraudulent misrepresentation of

            fact  is justified  in relying  upon  its truth,  although he

            might have ascertained the  falsity of the representation had

            he made an investigation.");  Restatement (Second) of Torts  

            545A (1976)  (contributory negligence  does not  bar recovery

            for fraud). 

                 Affirmed.
                 ________