Case Name: John B. Brook and George M. Porter, Respondents, v. Rose R. Kalfon, Doing Business as Randall's Painless Dentistry, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03
Citations: 58 Misc. 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: John B. Brook and George M. Porter, Respondents, v. Rose R. Kalfon, Doing Business as Randall’s Painless Dentistry, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 192–195

Head Matter:
John B. Brook and George M. Porter, Respondents, v. Rose R. Kalfon, Doing Business as Randall’s Painless Dentistry, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
March, 1908.)
Evidence — Weight, and sufficiency — TJncontradicted testimony — What circumstances will warrant disbelief.
Where, in an action to recover the price of goods sold, the purchaser defends on the ground of her infancy and, upon the trial, her uncle is called as a witness in her behalf and testifies that she was born on a certain day which would establish her infancy at the time of the sale, although his testimony is uncontradicted and he is not impeached, yet the court having an opportunity to see the defendant, and she testifying that at the time of her marriage she truly stated to the alderman who performed the ceremony what her age was, and it appearing that if her uncle’s testimony was true she had not then reached the age of legal consent, the presumption that the alderman did not violate his duty in marrying the defendant coupled with the opportunity for observing the defendant’s personal appearance, was sufficient to warrant the court in disregarding the evidence of the uncle and rendering a judgment for the plaintiff.
MacLean, J., dissented.
Appeal T>v the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.
Foster & Cunningham, for appellant.
Samuel Fine, for respondents.

Opinion:
Bischoff, J.
There was no question as to the fact of the sale and delivery of the goods to the defendant, and a recovery was resisted solely upon the affirmative defense of infancy. To support this defense a witness was called who testified that he was an uncle of the defendant; that at the' time of her birth he was living in- the house where she was born, and that the date of her birth was March 8, 1890. The goods in suit were supplied at the order of the defendant's husband and were delivered at her place of business, of which her husband had been placed in apparent charge. Called as a witness, the defendant stated that she had filed a certificate that she was doing business under the name of Randall's Painless Dentistry, and that she was married on December 6, 1906, before an alderman of this city. "Upon the proof before the justice, we find no reason for disturbing this judgment for the plaintiffs, since the weight of evidence was not necessarily in favor of the defense of infancy. The testimony of the single witness, Levy, called to establish the defendant's nonage, was not conclusive and could be opposed by the inferences which the justice might draw from the appearance of the defendant as well as from the fact of her marriage at a time when, if Levy's testimony were correct, she was far from the age of -legal consent. On cross-examination, she testified that, at the time of her marriage, she knew her true age and stated it to the alderman; and it is but a fair inference that her true age, when so stated to the alderman, must have been considerably greater than that testified to by Levy, if the official was content to perform the ceremony. In this view, Levy's testimony — the only evidence of infancy — was so far infirmed as to render it of no particular weight upon the question of the actual date of the defendant's birth.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Gildersleeve, J., concurs.