Case Name: O'NEILL v. TRAINOR
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-05-27
Citations: 52 N.Y.S. 251
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’NEILL v. TRAINOR.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 52
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
(23 Misc. Rep. 770.)
O’NEILL v. TRAINOR.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
May 27, 1898.)
Appeal—Review—Weight of Evidence.
Where plaintiff proves every material allegation in her complaint, a verdict in her favor will not be set aside on the ground that it is against the weight of evidence.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Rellie J. O’Neill against Bernard Trainor. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, P. J., and CONLAR and SCHUCHMAR, JJ.
W. B. Donihee, for appellant.
Charles A. Wendell, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This action is brought to recover the sum of $675 for breach of contract of employment. The complaint alleges that the defendant employed the plaintiff for the period commencing on February 24, 1896, and ending January 1, 1897, at $25 per week, and that on June 20th she was discharged without cause, and suffered damage as stated. The answer contains a general denial, and further alleges that plaintiff was hired for no stated time. The testimony shows that the plaintiff upon the trial proved every material allegation of her complaint. The defendant's evidence is to the effect that plaintiff was not employed for any stated period, and therefore he had a right to discharge her at any time; that she was incompetent and careless in the performance of her duties. The jury having found for the plaintiff, it is quite evident that they believed plaintiff's version of the transaction in question, and disbelieved the defendant, which, of course, they had a perfect right to do; and now defendant asks us to set aside the verdict upon the ground that it is against the weight of evidence. We have carefully reviewed the record presented to us, and find that the jury was fully justified in finding for the plaintiff. We also find that there was no error committed in the admission or exclusion of evidence or in the judge's charge.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.