Markarian v. Providence Ice Co.

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Markarian v. Providence Ice Co.

5 R.I. Dec. 99

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 21, 1929

DocketNo. 59536

StatusPublished

This text of 5 R.I. Dec. 99 (Markarian v. Providence Ice Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Markarian v. Providence Ice Co., 5 R.I. Dec. 99 (R.I. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon motion of defendant for a new trial after verdict of a jury for plaintiff of $2,120.

Action arose from a collision on January 5, 1924, at the corner of Camden Ave. and Douglas Ave. in Providence, ■between a truck driven by plaintiff and a truck belonging to defendant corporation.

There was a conflict of testimony as to the exact location of the collision. The testimony was absolutely conflicting as to many details. For instance, a witness, Morris Cheveniski, a peddler, testified he was standing on the step of his wagon and saw the colli-[100]*100«ion. Witnesses for tlie defence testified this man was not there at all. Again, a witness for the defendant testified he examined the truck of plaintiff after the collision and found the damage to same to he trivial. The truck of .plaintiff was towed to a repair station and Harold W. 'Gaynor, an auto appraiser, estimated the damage at $560'.

For plaintiff: Fergus J. McOsker. For defendant: R. T. Barnefield.

This conflicting testimony was submitted to the jury and the Court can not say the jury had no testimony .before it upon which a verdict for plaintiff could be found. The jury simply disbelieved witnesses for defendant.

Motion denied.

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

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon motion of defendant for a new trial after verdict of a jury for plaintiff of $2,120.

Action arose from a collision on January 5, 1924, at the corner of Camden Ave. and Douglas Ave. in Providence, ■between a truck driven by plaintiff and a truck belonging to defendant corporation.

There was a conflict of testimony as to the exact location of the collision. The testimony was absolutely conflicting as to many details. For instance, a witness, Morris Cheveniski, a peddler, testified he was standing on the step of his wagon and saw the colli-[100]*100«ion. Witnesses for tlie defence testified this man was not there at all. Again, a witness for the defendant testified he examined the truck of plaintiff after the collision and found the damage to same to he trivial. The truck of .plaintiff was towed to a repair station and Harold W. 'Gaynor, an auto appraiser, estimated the damage at $560'.

For plaintiff: Fergus J. McOsker. For defendant: R. T. Barnefield.

This conflicting testimony was submitted to the jury and the Court can not say the jury had no testimony .before it upon which a verdict for plaintiff could be found. The jury simply disbelieved witnesses for defendant.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 R.I. Dec. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markarian-v-providence-ice-co-risuperct-1929.