Case ID: misc_8/html/0683-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT — GENERAL TERM,
    MAY, 1894.
    Henry Schulz, Respondent, v. Charles Rohe et al., Appellants.
    Appeal by defendants from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial.
    
      Shaw cfe Fish, for respondent.
    
      Peyó, Puer <& Bauerdorf, for appellants.
   Per Curiam.

Under the decision of the General Term of this court upon the former appeal (4 Misc. Rep. 384) and the evidence given by both parties upon the trial now under review, the case was one for the jury. It was properly submitted and, upon the whole case, it cannot be held that the verdict is contrary to evidence or to the weight of the evidence. No reason appears sufficient to call for a disturbance of the verdict. There were no errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Freedman and McAdam, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.