Case ID: nj-misc_14/html/0786-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALBERT S. WOODRUFF, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RUDOLPH DI PAOLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Submitted May term, 1936
    Decided October 9, 1936.
    Before Justices Bodine and TTetter. ■
    Por the appellant, Wescott & Gelfand.
    
    Por the respondent, Albert S. Woodruff, pro se.
    
   Per Curiam.

There was evidence tending to establish plaintiff’s right to recover the fees, costs and disbursements set forth in the state of demand; and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.

There was no basis for the claim made by defendant that he was denied the right to argue the factual questions at the conclusion of the taking of the proofs. While the judge indicated he would “not hear argument,” the right was not asserted by defendant, nor was the question raised by an appropriate exception.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.