Case ID: nys_97/html/0394-01.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

ROSSEAU v. HALLENBECK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 17, 1906.)
    The court is not justified in wholly discrediting plaintiff’s testimony, she being uncontradicted and unimpeached, and her story not improbable, and there having been persons who might have been called to contradict her, if her testimony’ had been untrue in any particular.
    Evidence—Testimony oe . Party—Credibility. "
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, § 2438.J
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Twelfth-District.
    Action by Florence R. Rosseau against Plarry C. Hallenbeck. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before SCOTT, P. J„ and -BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ. -
    Ferguson & Ferguson (L. C. Ferguson, of counsel), for appellant.
    McBurney & McBurney (Elgin L. McBurney, of counsel), for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We do not think that the court below was justified in wholly discrediting.plaintiff’s testimony as to the retention of the dress suit case. She was uncóntradicted'and unimpeached, and her story was not improbable. If it had been untrue in any particular there were employes of the hotel who might have been called to-contradict her. Of course, on the question of value of the articles said to have been contained in the case, the plaintiff testified' mainly as to her opinion, and not as to a fact. We have not, however, considered any question respecting the damages since they are not important on this appeal.- - - • .

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.