Case ID: nys_46/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McOARTHY, j.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(20 Misc. Rep. 697.)
    KRAUSS et al. v. ABELES.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    July 15, 1897.)
    Witness—Co irr etency.
    A plaintiff is not barred of recovery because of his interest, where a dispute arose, and only he and defendant were present.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Richard Krauss and another against Simon Abeles. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before YAK WYÜK, C. J., and SCHUCHMAH and MCCARTHY, JJ.
    Strong & Cadwalader, for appellant.
    B. Lewinson, for respondents.
   McOARTHY, j.

This is entirely a question of fact, and was fairly ■and properly left to the jury. They have believed the plaintiffs’ testimony, and found for them. It is not the rule, and there is no such law, that where a dispute arises, and only the plaintiff and the defendant were present, the plaintiff cannot recover, because he is interested. It is still a question for the jury, under proper instructions, which the appellant availed himself fully of.

Judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs. ' All concur.