Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0689-01.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

Samuel Goldberg, Resp’t, v. William Wolff, App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term
    
    
      Filed July 18, 1890.)
    
    ■Conversion — Evidence.
    Statements in letters of a third person that money given to defendant to be sent to her had not been received is not sufficient to support a finding of conversion of such moneys by defendant. Such letters are clearly hearsay and not evidence against defendant.
    Appeal from judgment of the fourth district court.
    Action for conversion of moneys given to defendant to send to "the sister of plaintiff. The only evidence to show conversion was the contents of letters received by plaintiff from his' sister which stated that the money had not been received.
    
      P. Greenthal, for resp’t; A. H. Sarahson, for app’lt.
   Per Curiam.

We regret that we are compelled to reverse this judgment, but without the contents of the letters which were admitted in evidence under defendant’s objection there is no sufficient proof of the conversion of the money deposited with the defendant. Those letters were not even offered in evidence; their contents only being given. But even if the letters themselves had been offered they would not have been evidence against the defendant, not having been written by any party to the action touching the matter in controversy; they were clearly hearsay evidence of a third party not under oath.

The judgment should therefore be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs of the appeal to the appellant to abide the event of the action.

Allen and Bookstaveb, JJ., concur.