Case Name: BRUDER, Appellant, v. KLENKE et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-02-28
Citations: 92 N.Y.S. 1118
Docket Number: 
Parties: BRUDER, Appellant, v. KLENKE et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 92
Pages: 1118–1118

Head Matter:
BRUDER, Appellant, v. KLENKE et al., Respondents.
(Supreme Court, -Appellate Term.
February 28, 1905.)
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District. Action by Abe Bruder against Emma R. Klenke and another. From a judgment for defendants, after a trial without a jury, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. .Tacón I. Wiener, for appellant. Albert G. Sharkey, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
One of the defendants pleaded that the note sued upon was diverted from the purposes for which she gave her indorsement, and the other defendant pleaded that it was given for a gambling debt. There was satisfactory evidence given in support of each of these defenses, and of the further fact that the plaintiff did not receive the note in good faith or for value, but that it was still the property of the original holder, to whom it had been given for a gambling debt. Judgment affirmed, with costs.