Case Name: POWERS v. VILLAGE OF CHAMPLAIN
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-11-22
Citations: 21 N.Y.S. 101
Docket Number: 
Parties: POWERS v. VILLAGE OF CHAMPLAIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 21
Pages: 101–101

Head Matter:
POWERS v. VILLAGE OF CHAMPLAIN.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
November 22, 1892.)
Appeal—Review—Weight op Evidence. A verdict for plaintiff, in an action against a village for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk, will not be disturbed on appeal, where the evidence as to defendant’s negligence is sufficient to support such verdict.
Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county.
Action by Matilda A. Powers, an infant, by James Clark, her guardian ad litem, against the village of Champlain, to recover for injuries resulting from a defective sidewalk. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.
W. H. Dunn, (Royal Corbin, of counsel,) for appellant.
Shedden & Booth, (L. L. Shedden, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
MAYHAM, P. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion fora new trial on the minutes of the trial judge at the circuit. The action was to recover for alleged injury to the plaintiff, claimed to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in suffering its side and cross walks to be out of repair and unsafe, by reason of which the plaintiff, while lawfully passing over said sidewalk, fell and was injured. The defense was a denial of defendant's negligence, and an allegation of contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. We think the evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict of the jury upon the questions of the defendant's negligence; and as the question of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was, in this case, one for the jury, their finding should not be disturbed by this court on appeal. The rule that all legal and legitimate presumptions from the evidence are to be indulged in to uphold the verdict applies to this case. Schneider v. Railroad Co., (Super. N. Y.) 15 N. Y. Supp. 556; Hart v. Bridge Co., 80 N. Y. 622. We see no error in the rulings of the judge, or in his charge, for which the judgment can be reversed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.