Case Name: POLAND v. MINSHALL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-11-29
Citations: 96 N.Y.S. 200
Docket Number: 
Parties: POLAND v. MINSHALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 96
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
POLAND v. MINSHALL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 29, 1905.)
1. Animals—Horses—Knowledge of Vioiousness.
In an action for damages resulting from being bitten by defendant's horse, evidence that the horse was frequently kept muzzled implied knowledge on defendant’s part of its viciousness.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 2, Cent Dig. Animals, $ 266.]
2. Trial—Adjournment—Conditions—Payment of Costs—Powers of Court.
Under Municipal Court Act, Laws 1902, p. 1548, c. 580, § 195, providing that the court may impose on the party applying for an adjournment such conditions as to it may seem reasonable, the court may require the payment of costs to the adverse party as a condition precedent to an adjournment
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Cora V. Poland against Francis G. Minstiall. ment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
Alexander Lamont, for appellant.
John E. Judge, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $334.17, damages and costs, for being bitten by defendant's horse. There was a conflict of proof as to the ownership of the horse and as to the viciousness of the animal being known to defendant. The latter's daughter, however, admits identity of the defendant as the man shown to be the owner of the hopse. The defendant was not called as a witness at all. It also appears that the horse was frequently kept muzzled, which implies knowledge of his viciousness. _ No contributory negligence on part of plaintiff was proven. The jury were warranted in finding for plaintiff. No claim that damages awarded are excessive.
The defendant also appeals from an order adjourning the trial upon payment of costs to defendant. This was allowable under section 195 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1548, c. 580).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.