Case ID: ny-st-rep_54/html/0088-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Curry, Resp’t, v. Patrick J. Gleason, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed July 28, 1893.)
    
    Verdict—Conflicting evidence.
    Where there are no questions of law, and the testimony was contradictory, the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial.
    
      S. B. & D. Noble, for app’lt; William E. Stewart, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $1.058.82 loaned to the defendant by the plaintiff between the 1st day of Januaz-y, 1887, and the 6tlz day of January, 1890.

The defense set up in the answer was a general denial.

The cause was tried at the circuit before a juz-y, where the plaintiff testified to his claim in detail, and the defendant as a witness in his own behalf denied that he ever borrowed any money from the plaintiff and denied the claim absolutely.

The cause was submitted to the jury upon that contradictory testimony, and the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying the motion for a new trial on the minutes of the GOUI't.

Under well settled rules of law it is obvious we cannot interfere with the judgment. There are no questions of law involved and the testimony was contradictory, and thus presented a case peculiarly within the pz-ovince of the jury. The testimony of the plaintiff was amply sufficient to justify the verdict and the jury must have found it true.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.