Bensky v. Banks

New York Supreme Court

Bensky v. Banks

8 N.Y.S. 935, 5 Silv. Sup. 229, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 362, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1877

DecidedFebruary 12, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.Y.S. 935 (Bensky v. Banks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bensky v. Banks, 8 N.Y.S. 935, 5 Silv. Sup. 229, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 362, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1877 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

This is an action for the recovery of damages for assault and battery. The plaintiff recovered a small verdict, and defendant has appealed. According to the testimony of the plaintiff he was a peddler, and was approaching the house of the defendant to make sales, when the defendant came up to him and struck him with a stick, and knocked him down, and inflicted injuries upon his ear and head. The defendant does not deny the infliction of the blow, but says the plaintiff made a motion to draw a pistol, and he acted in self-defense. The whole case went to the jury under a correct charge, and the plaintiff received the verdict, and so we must assume the facts as he stated them and as the jury has found them. Under such an assumption the case was made out, and the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial must be affirmed. There was no error either in the ruling or charge of the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dykman, J.

This is an action for the recovery of damages for assault and battery. The plaintiff recovered a small verdict, and defendant has appealed. According to the testimony of the plaintiff he was a peddler, and was approaching the house of the defendant to make sales, when the defendant came up to him and struck him with a stick, and knocked him down, and inflicted injuries upon his ear and head. The defendant does not deny the infliction of the blow, but says the plaintiff made a motion to draw a pistol, and he acted in self-defense. The whole case went to the jury under a correct charge, and the plaintiff received the verdict, and so we must assume the facts as he stated them and as the jury has found them. Under such an assumption the case was made out, and the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial must be affirmed. There was no error either in the ruling or charge of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y.S. 935, 5 Silv. Sup. 229, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 362, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bensky-v-banks-nysupct-1890.