Case ID: wis_250/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rosenbekry, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adolph Coors Company, Respondent, vs. Pursel, Appellant. Same, Respondent, vs. Same and another, Appellants.
    
      February 25
    
    April 8, 1947.
    
    
      For the appellants there was a brief by Crawford & Crawford of Superior, and oral argument by Brandon E. Crawford.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by S. J. Auringer of Grantsburg, attorney, and Douglas & Omernik of Spooner of counsel, and oral argument by Edward E. Omernik.
    
   Rosenbekry, C. J.

The determination of the issues in these actions depends almost entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses for the respective parties. Such documentary evidence as was offered and received tends to support the plaintiff’s contentions. The trial court gave the matter careful consideration. He saw and heard the witnesses. We have carefully reviewed the evidence offered upon the trial and find that the trial court reached the right determination. Certainly his conclusions upon the evidence are not against the clear preponderance and great weight of the evidence, and for that reason the court’s findings cannot be disturbed.

Inasmuch as the controversy deals almost entirely with questions of fact no useful purpose would be served by setting-out the evidence in detail. The claim of the defendant, Harry Pursel, that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $38,996.15, in view of the evidence offered by him upon the trial to sustain it, is sufficient of itself to cast doubt upon the probity and good faith of the defendant, Harry Pursel.

By the Court. — Judgment in each case is affirmed.