O'Neill v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Neill v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

86 N.Y.S. 208

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 25, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 86 N.Y.S. 208 (O'Neill 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

O'Neill v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 86 N.Y.S. 208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is one of the customary actions for damages •alleged to have been sustained by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was the only witness sworn in her behalf. The defendant called four witnesses, three of whom were wholly disinterested; the fourth being the conductor of the car at the time of the accident, but who has since been engaged in other employment, having no connection with the defendant. These four witnesses contradicted the plaintiff’s version of the accident, and, if their testimony is to be believed, the plaintiff was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. The judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence, and must be reversed.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is one of the customary actions for damages •alleged to have been sustained by the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was the only witness sworn in her behalf. The defendant called four witnesses, three of whom were wholly disinterested; the fourth being the conductor of the car at the time of the accident, but who has since been engaged in other employment, having no connection with the defendant. These four witnesses contradicted the plaintiff’s version of the accident, and, if their testimony is to be believed, the plaintiff was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. The judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence, and must be reversed.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.Y.S. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneill-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1904.