Catura v. Kleiner

70 N.W. 479, 95 Wis. 378, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 201
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided February 23, 1897·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

NewmaN, J.

No reason is perceived why this appeal is not governed by the established rule that the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the testimony. The trial judge has many incidental aids to the understanding and appreciation of the testimony, which this court lacks. He sees the witnesses, observes their manner in giving their testimony, can judge of their intelligence, and receives some reliable impressions from their appearance and conduct of their singleness and veracity, or want of it, which assists him in his judgment of the credit due to their statements. This court receives no such aid in its study of the testimony from the printed page. So, great reliance is, of necóssity, placed upon the judgment of the trial court on contested questions of fact. There is abundant testimony, if believed, to support the findings of the trial court. No reason is apparent to this court why the trial court might not, without violation of any legal principle, believe the testimony which supports the findings.

By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Catura v. Kleiner, 70 N.W. 479, 95 Wis. 378, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 201 (Wis. 1897).

70 N.W. 479 (Catura v. Kleiner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Deleglise
114 N.W. 130 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
McFarlane v. Louden
75 N.W. 394 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1898)
Senour Manufacturing Co. v. Clarke
71 N.W. 883 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1897)