Case ID: ny-st-rep_14/html/0711-01.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

The Bigelow Co., Resp’t, v. Robert J. Gray, App’lt.
    
      (New York Court of Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed February, 6, 1888.)
    
    I. Court or common pleas—Cannot review exercise oe discretion op TRIAL JUDGE O'P NEW YORK CITY COURT.
    An application for the adjournment of the trial of an action in the city . court'of New York city is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion may he reviewed by the general term of that court but not by the court of common pleas.
    2. Same—When it cannot reverse judgment op new York city court.
    The court of common pleas cannot reverse judgment of the city court of the city of New York on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence, there being some evidence to support the finding of the jury.
    
      Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the city court, affirming a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury, at trial term.
    
      Hastings & Southworth, for resp’t; J. F. Miller, for app’lt.
   Per Curiam.

The application for an adjournment of the

trial in the court below was addressed to the discretion of the trial justice. Whether that discretion was properly exercised, may be reviewed by the general term of that court but cannot be reviewed in this. Wakefield v. American Surety Co., 13 Daly, 349; Walsh v. Schulz, 12 id., 108; McEteere v. Little, 8 id., 167; Schwartz v. Oppold, 74 N. Y., 307. And for the same reasons this court cannot reverse the judgment, because it'is against the weight of evidence—there being some evidence on which the jury could find as it did.

The answer did not allege that the cylinder which plaintiff was to construct was made of material differing from that called for by the contract, or that it was of less value in consequence; nor was any motion made by the defendant to conform the pleadings to the proof; and the jury seem to have allowed him something for this difference in value.

The exceptions to the admission of evidence, we have examined, and do not think there was any error committed in this respect which would, in any way, have affected the verdict to defendant’s injury.

. The judgment should be affirmed with costs.