Case Name: Gleason, Resp't, v. Thorn et al., Appl'ts
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-10-29
Citations: 70 N.Y. St. Rep. 884
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gleason, Resp’t, v. Thorn et al., Appl’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 70
Pages: 884–885

Head Matter:
Gleason, Resp’t, v. Thorn et al., Appl’ts.
N. Y. C. C.
October 29, 1895.
Dmis, Short and Townsend, for appl’l; L. J. Morrison, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Fitzsimons, J.
— The answer alleges that the books in question were to be bound in a good quality of leather. That allegation is specifically referred to because it is quite apparent from the record that the leather used in the covering the books was the main cause of this litigation. Therefore, it seems to us that, if the evidence shows that the leather so used was good, the judgment should stand. All through the case we find the usual conflict of testimony. On plaintiff's behalf it is claimed that the contract was fully performed. On defendants' side the contrary is claimed, but the defendants' witnesses apparently were not good judges of leather, and their evidence seems to rest mainly on their fancy; their testimony, in substance, being that they did not like the leather as much as the sample, and, in their opinion, it was not the same. Evidently, their opinion was not entitled to as much credibility or 'weight as was the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, who are experienced men; and the jury were justified in so finding. It seems to us that no error was committed, and that the judgment must be affirmed with costs. McCarty, J., concurs.