Case Name: Peter McCann, Respondent, v. Frederick Thilemann, Jr., et al., Appellants
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 35 Misc. 855
Docket Number: 
Parties: Peter McCann, Respondent, v. Frederick Thilemann, Jr., et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 855–855

Head Matter:
Peter McCann, Respondent, v. Frederick Thilemann, Jr., et al., Appellants.
Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying motion for a new trial.
Weeks, Battle & Marshall, for appellants.
Robert H. Ernest (Percy W. Crane and J. Aspinwall Hodge, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Hascall, J.
This case presents a very close question upon the law — in short, is at the border line. But, while we might possibly disagree with the learned court below in declining to charge all that the appellants requested, yet, upon the whole, we determine that fatal error was not committed by refusal. The case was carefully and'impartially presented for the jury's consideration of the facts; and the verdict, in view of the long and continued use of the path by plaintiff and the public, having held the defendant to have been negligent, will be permitted to stand. (68 N. Y. 293.)
Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Conlan, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.