Case Name: James H. Styler, Resp't, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02
Citations: 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 727
Docket Number: 
Parties: James H. Styler, Resp’t, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 58
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
James H. Styler, Resp’t, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February, 1894.)
Appeal—Conflicting evidence.
A verdict, upon conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
Appeal by the defendant, The Long Island Railroad Company, from a judgment of the supreme court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 24th day of March, 1893, and from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
W. 0. Beecher, for app’lt; Thomas B. Pearsall, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court.
The action is for the recovery of damages resulting from a personal injury to the plaintiff by reason of the negligence of the defendant.
The testimony upon the trial was contradictory, that on the part of the plaintiff making a cause of action for him, and that on the part of the defendant sufficient to exculpate the company.
It was, therefore, a proper case for the jury, and the trial judge submitted the same in a charge which was eminently fair towards the defendant, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the-plaintiff.
We must assume, therefore, that the testimony on the part of the plaintiff commanded the belief of the jury and in that view the verdict cannot be disturbed.
We find no error, and the judgment and order denying the-motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt and Cullen, JJ., concurred.
Judgment and order denying motion for new trial affirmed, with costs.