Crassley v. McArdle

New York Supreme Court

Crassley v. McArdle

26 N.Y.S. 420, 74 Hun 133, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 133, 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 396

DecidedDecember 6, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 26 N.Y.S. 420 (Crassley v. McArdle) 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

Crassley v. McArdle, 26 N.Y.S. 420, 74 Hun 133, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 133, 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 396 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

HERRICK, J.

I have carefully read the testimony in this case, and, while the preponderance of the evidence seems to be in favor of the defendant, still, when it is considered that the jury had the witnesses before them to observe their appearance, and the manner of giving of their testimony, that preponderance is not so great as to indicate that the finding of the jury against the defendant was brought about by passion, prejudice, or corruption. There was a conflict of evidence, and it was for the jury to determine where the truth was. The exceptions taken during the progress of the trial are not sufficiently important to cause a reversal of the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, there being no occasion for an opinion. All concur.

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

HERRICK, J.

I have carefully read the testimony in this case, and, while the preponderance of the evidence seems to be in favor of the defendant, still, when it is considered that the jury had the witnesses before them to observe their appearance, and the manner of giving of their testimony, that preponderance is not so great as to indicate that the finding of the jury against the defendant was brought about by passion, prejudice, or corruption. There was a conflict of evidence, and it was for the jury to determine where the truth was. The exceptions taken during the progress of the trial are not sufficiently important to cause a reversal of the judgment. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, there being no occasion for an opinion. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 N.Y.S. 420, 74 Hun 133, 81 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 133, 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crassley-v-mcardle-nysupct-1893.