Case ID: misc_35/html/0826-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Philip Stromberg, Respondent, v. Rose Amelio, Appellant.
    Appead from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the -city of ¡New York, second district, borough of Manhattan.
    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. There appeared on the trial that two watches were sold by the plaintiff, one to the defendant and another to a third person which was afterwards returned. There is no evidence that the watch sold to the defendant was ever returned, or the balance due therefor was ever paid.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.