Case ID: misc_23/html/0764-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE TERM,
    JUNE, 1898.
    Benjamin Finkel, Respondent, v. John Davidson et al., Appellants.
    ' Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the city of New York for the fourth judicial district rendered in favor of the plaintiff/ '!'-.■/
    Abraham H. Sarasohn, for appellants.
    Jacob Rieger, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We think the justice below had-no power to modify, the. judgment as he did/ and for that reason it should he reversed. • We also think that the question put to the plaintiff on cross-examination, Didn’t you know as a clbakmaker from an experience of four years when a. man is hired for a certain time a writing is given, and if a writing is not given! he is hired from week to .week? ” should have been allowed, as it had some bearing upon his credibility in view of -the nature of the ¡arrangement with the defendants to which he testified. ",

' Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. j

Present:. Beekman, P, J., Gildersleevé andfGiEGERicH, JJ.

■Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event. • ' !