Case ID: ny-sup-ct_90/html/0004-01.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

Mary M. Whiting, Respondent, v. The Standard Gas Light Company, Appellant.
    
      Beview of questions of fact — the “case” must state that it contains all the evidence.
    
    Although, the court on an appeal from a judgment may he inclined to the view that excessive damages were awarded by the verdict of a jury, it will not interfere with the judgment rendered if the record does not show that the case on appeal contains all the evidence.
    Appeal by the defendant, The Standard Gas Light Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 31st day of May, 1891, upon the verdict of a jury rendered after a trial at the New York Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 29th day of May, 1891, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    
      Hen/ry Thornpson, for the appellant.
    
      T. MeOcmts /Stewart, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam :

There was such evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, and absence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, as justified the submission of the case to the jury.

The appellant contends that excessive damages were awarded by the verdict. If we were inclined to the view that the evidence before us would justify such contention, still we could not interfere with the judgment because the record does not inform us that it contains ail the evidence.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Yan Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Parker, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.