Reiss v. Kienle

88 N.Y.S. 359
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided May 19, 1904·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions of fact in the case were fairly presented to the jury. The trial judge did not charge that, if the jury ■ found a verdict for the defendant, it must bear in mind that he is a poor man, “and can be incarcerated,” and therefore the exception was not well taken. The charge was that, even if the defendant were a poor man, and not able to pay the amount of the recovery, “if you give him a verdict he could be incarcerated until he does pay.” The charge was meaningless. But if we suppose that the judge intended to charge that, if the jury should render a verdict against the defendant, he would be incarcerated such charge was not erroneous. Keller v. Strasburger, 90 N. Y. 379.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

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

Reiss v. Kienle, 88 N.Y.S. 359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

88 N.Y.S. 359 (Reiss v. Kienle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keller v. . Strasburger
90 N.Y. 379 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)