Case ID: nys_72/html/1131-02.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

STROMBERG, Respondent, v. AMELIO, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by Philip Stromberg against Rose Amelio.
    Goepel & Wahle, for appellant. E. Rosenthal, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

There is some confusion from the evidence arising from the use of the masculine pronoun in the plaintiff’s testimony. This may be from an error of the stenographer. It appeared on the trial that two watches were sold by the plaintiff,—one to the defendant, and another to a third person, which was after-wards returned. There is no evidence that the watch sold to the defendant was ever returned, or the balance due therefor was ever paid. Judgment affirmed, with costs.