Case Name: Thomas Jay Gleason, Respondent, v. Charles W. Thorn et al., Appellants
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-10
Citations: 14 Misc. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Jay Gleason, Respondent, v. Charles W. Thorn et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
Thomas Jay Gleason, Respondent, v. Charles W. Thorn et al., Appellants.
(City Court of New York
General Term,
October, 1895.)
. Where a contract for binding provides that the books shall be bound in a good quality of leather, proof that the leather used was good is sufficient to support a recovery.
Opinions -of persons -not shown to. be judges of an article as to its quality are not entitled to as much credibility and weight as testimony of experienced persons. ' ■
Appeal from judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.
Dmies, Stone ds Auerbach, for appellants.
L. J. Morrison, for respondent.

Opinion:
Fitzsimons, J.
The answer alleges that the books in question were to be bound in a good quality of leather; that allegation is specifically, referred to because it is' quite apparent from -the record that the leather used in the covering; of the books was the main cause of this litigation. Therefore, it seems to us that, if the evidence shows that the leather so used was..good, the judgment should stand. All through the case we find the usual conflict of testimony; oh plaintiff's behalf it is claimed that the contract was fully performed ;'on defendants' side the contrary is claimed, but the defendants'' witnesses apparently were not judges, of good leather and their evidence seems to rest mainly in their fancy, their testimony in substance being that they did not like the leather as much as the sample, and in their opinion it was not the same;. evidently their opinion was not entitled to as much credibility or weight as was the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, who-are experienced men,' and the jury were justified in. so finding.
It seems to us that no error was committed and that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
•McCarthy, J., concurs.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.