Case ID: nys_87/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BLANCHARD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BERLINER. v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 24, 1904.)
    1. Appeal—Conflicting Evidence.
    The testimony as a whole showing a conflict of evidence, the verdict will . not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Julius Berliner against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and SCOTT and BLANCHARD, JJ.
    Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant.
    George H. Epstein, for respondent.
   BLANCHARD, J.

The defendant asks a reversal of the judgment on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of evidence. A reading of detached portions of the testimony may lead to that conclusion, but a careful reading of all the testimony discloses a conflict of evidence which was peculiarly for the jury to pass upon. The questions at issue were fairly presented to the jury in the charge of the court, and without exception, and I see no sufficient reason to reverse the judgment. .

The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.