Case Name: LAUCK v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-02
Citations: 76 N.Y.S. 977
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAUCK v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 76
Pages: 977–978

Head Matter:
LAUCK v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(City Court of New York,
General Term.
February, 1902.)
Appeal—Conflicting Evidence.
A judgment for plaintiff in an action for personal injuries will not be disturbed on appeal where the evidence was conflicting, and no objections made to the charge.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Katherina Lauck against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and CONLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
Henry A. Robinson (E. D. O’Brien, Theodore H. Lord, of counsel), for appellant.
Julius H. Cohn, for respondent.

Opinion:
CONLAN, J.
The action was brought to recover for injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the negligence of the defendant, and the result of this appeal may very well rest upon the submission of the case to the jury, and the verdict rendered in consequence thereof. The evidence was in conflict as to- how the injury was caused, but the charge to the jury was so eminently fair to both sides that neither was heard to complain. It is a remarkable incident in connection with the submission to the jury that questions vital to the issue were asked by certain of the jurors, and were so answered by the trial justice as to be entirely free from objection or exception by either party to the action; and the court charged the certain requests substantially as requested by both counsel. Under all of the circumstances, therefore, we do not think that the conclusion reached below should be disturbed on appeal. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.