Case ID: nys_52/html/1141-10.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

FINKEL, Respondent, v. DAVIDSON et al., Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 6, 1898.)
    Appeal from Fourth district court. Action by Benjamin Finkel against John Davidson and others.
    Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed. Abraham H. Sarasohn, for appellants. Jacob Rieger, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

We think the justice below had no power to modify the judgment as he did, and for that reason it should be reversed. We also think that the question put to the plaintiff on cross-examination, “Didn’t you know as a cloakmaker, from an experience of four years, when a man is hired for a certain time, a writing is given, and, if a writing is not given, he is hired from week to week?” should have been allowed, as it had some bearing upon his credibility in view of the nature of the arrangement with the defendants to which he testified. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.