Case Name: JOHN T. MURRAY, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., PLAINTIFF, v. ALFRED H. PUERSCHNER AND JAMES BIRTWHISTLE, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1924-06-25
Citations: 2 N.J. Misc. 618
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN T. MURRAY, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., PLAINTIFF, v. ALFRED H. PUERSCHNER AND JAMES BIRTWHISTLE, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
JOHN T. MURRAY, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., PLAINTIFF, v. ALFRED H. PUERSCHNER AND JAMES BIRTWHISTLE, DEFENDANTS.
Argued May 8, 1924
Decided June 25, 1924.
Negligence — Death Act — Verdict Contrary to Evidence — Rule Made Absolute.
Before Justices Kalisci-i, Black ana Campbell.
For the plaintiff, William E. Sewell.
For the defendants, James Birtwhistle, Comgleton, Stall-man & Hoover and Charles W. Weelcs.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This suit was brought to recover damages under the Death act. The trial resulted in a verdict of $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant James Birtwhistle obtained a rule to show cause, and writes down eleven reasons for a new trial. The view that we take of the case, it is only necessary to consider the first reason, viz., the verdict of the jury is contrary to the weight of the evidence. It seems quite unnecessary to state'the evidence in detail. Our reading of the record leads us to the conclusion that so far as the defendant James Birtwhistle is concerned, the verdict against him is clearly against the weight of the evidence, and the rule to show cause will be made absolute.