Case ID: nys_10/html/0796-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mendel v. Brooklyn City R. Co.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 18, 1890.)
    Trial—Instructions—Refusal to Charge.
    Refusal to charge abstract principles is not error where all the principles applicable to the case have already been charged.
    Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
    Action by Marcus Mandel against the Brooklyn City Railroad Company.. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      George W. Wilson, for appellant. Morris & Whitehouse, for respondent.
   Dykman, J.

This action was commenced to recover for damage resulting to the plaintiff from an injury inflicted by the horses and car of the defendant. The action is based upon the negligence of the defendant, and the testimony upon the trial was quite contradictory. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment entered thereon. The verdict is fully sustained by the evidence, and we cannot interfere upon the questions of fact involved after the verdict of the jury. At the close of the charge of the trial judge several abstract principles were submitted to him with a request to charge them as they were read. All the principles involved which were applicable to the case had been charged by the judge, and he declined to make any further charge. No error can be predicated upon such refusal, and therefore the exceptions are unavailing. The judgment and order denying a motion for anew trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.