Case ID: ny-st-rep_39/html/0089-01.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

Richard E. Preusser et al., Resp’ts, v. James M. Stockton et al., App’lts.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed June 1, 1891.)
    
    Appeal—Review—Contradictory evidence.
    • Where the issues were fairly submitted to the jury upon contradictory evidence, their verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from a judgment of a trial term entered on a verdict of a jury.
    
      Thaddeus D. Kenneson (Henry A. Root, of counsel), for app’lts; John Graham, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

—The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial presents the point that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The controversy turned upon the question whether the plaintiffs or defendants told the truth of the transaction between them. The issue was fairly submitted to the jury upon the contradictory stories of the respective parties, and we perceive no reason for disturbing the verdict. In the exercise of their appropriate function the jury accepted the version of the plaintiffs, and their finding is as clearly in conformity with the evidence as with the interests of justice.

The appeal from the judgment challenges the validity of the appellants’ exceptions; but notwithstanding the ingenious argument of counsel, none of them appears of sufficient plausibility even to require or justify serious discussion.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Daly, Ch. J., Bischoff and Pryor, JJ., concur