Mullarkey v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Mullarkey v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

48 Misc. 638, 96 N.Y.S. 115

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 Misc. 638 (Mullarkey v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mullarkey v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 48 Misc. 638, 96 N.Y.S. 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case has been twice tried, a former judgment in behalf of plaintiff having been reversed on the ground that the verdict- was against the evidence.- The evidence to sustain the verdict in the present case is by no means satisfactory; but, after two juries have arrived at the same conclusion as to the facts, we should be disposed to accept the second verdict were it not for the persistence of plaintiff’s counsel in making statements to the jury, unsupported by any evidence in the case and calculated, as well as designed, to prejudice the jury against the defendant. In a case where there is so much doubt, as in the present, whether the evi[639]*639deuce is sufficient to sustain the verdict, we may not say that these irrelevant and improper statements did not turn the scale in plaintiff’s favor.

Present: Scott and MacLean, JJ.; Giedersleeve, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

This case has been twice tried, a former judgment in behalf of plaintiff having been reversed on the ground that the verdict- was against the evidence.- The evidence to sustain the verdict in the present case is by no means satisfactory; but, after two juries have arrived at the same conclusion as to the facts, we should be disposed to accept the second verdict were it not for the persistence of plaintiff’s counsel in making statements to the jury, unsupported by any evidence in the case and calculated, as well as designed, to prejudice the jury against the defendant. In a case where there is so much doubt, as in the present, whether the evi[639]*639deuce is sufficient to sustain the verdict, we may not say that these irrelevant and improper statements did not turn the scale in plaintiff’s favor.

Present: Scott and MacLean, JJ.; Giedersleeve, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 Misc. 638, 96 N.Y.S. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullarkey-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack