Case Name: Theodore B. Foulke, Respondent, v. Eugene Thalmessinger, Appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-05
Citations: 8 Misc. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: Theodore B. Foulke, Respondent, v. Eugene Thalmessinger, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 445–448

Head Matter:
Theodore B. Foulke, Respondent, v. Eugene Thalmessinger, Appellant.
(New York Superior Court—General Term,
May, 1894.)
The mere fact that the witnesses for one side outnumber those on the other does not necessarily create a fair preponderance such as is necessary to require a verdict to be set aside as against the weight of evidence. A fair preponderance of evidence, in this connection, means evidence of such character and weight as will carry conviction to the minds of the jurors of the existence of the facts sought to be proven.
Appeal by defendant from judgment, entered on verdict of jury in favor of plaintiff, and from order denying motion for new trial.
I M. Dittenhoefer, for appellant.
O. A. Decker, for respondent.

Opinion:
McAdam, J.
The plaintiff sued to recover $583.33 as a balance due on a contract of employment commencing June 16,1890, and continuing until January 1, 1891, at the agreed compensation of $2,000 per year. The plaintiff testified to the contract as stated and to the performance of the required services under it. The defendant, on the other hand, denied the making of the alleged contract, and insisted that the arrangement made with the plaintiff was of a temporary character looking forward to the formation of a safe deposit company, in which he expected to obtain permanent employ ment for the plaintiff at $2,000 per year; that the plaintiff would have to take the chances of success in the matter; that in the meantime, while his services continued, he would pay him out of his own pocket at the rate of $1,000 per annum; and that he paid the plaintiff under this arrangement all moneys to which he became entitled.-
The father of the defendant corroborated this theory of the defense, while the plaintiff denied that any such understanding as that insisted upon by the defendant was ever- made. In short, there was a direct conflict in the evidence as to the facts. These were submitted to the jury, who found in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
Ho motion to dismiss was made at any stage of the case, nor was any request made to direct a verdict in favor of either side.
The defendant now insists that the verdict is against evidence, and relies upon Meddaugh v. Bigelow, 67 Barb. 106, in which it was held that " if the plaintiff's case is not free from doubt on his own testimony, and it wholly fails for want of preponderance of proof when considered in connection with the evidence of two witnesses on the part of the défense, who were conversant with all the facts and whose testimony in denial was clear, exact and circumstantial, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff is clearly against conscience, and the judge is justified in setting it aside and ordering a new trial." In that case the verdict had been set aside by the trial judge, and the appeal considered was from his order.