Case Name: Philip Stromberg, Respondent, v. Rose Amelio, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 35 Misc. 826
Docket Number: 
Parties: Philip Stromberg, Respondent, v. Rose Amelio, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 826–826

Head Matter:
Philip Stromberg, Respondent, v. Rose Amelio, Appellant.
Appead from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the -city of ¡New York, second district, borough of Manhattan.
Goepel & Wahle, for appellant.
E. Rosenthal, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is some confusion from the evidence arising from the use of the masculine pronoun in the plaintiff's testimony; this may be from an error of the stenographer. There appeared on the trial that two watches were sold by the plaintiff, one to the defendant and another to a third person which was afterwards returned. There is no evidence that the watch sold to the defendant was ever returned, or the balance due therefor was ever paid.
Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.