Case ID: ad_242/html/0631-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter Barth, Respondent, v. Louis Drago, Appellant.
   Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The court erred in charging the jury that there was no question with respect to whether or not the plaintiff had a broken nose. There was a conflict of evidence on this point, and the court’s charge was an invasion of the jury's function in this respect. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.