New York Supreme Court, 1892

Bailey v. Gluth

Bailey v. Gluth
New York Supreme Court · Decided July 22, 1892 · Cullen
19 N.Y.S. 945; 47 N.Y. St. Rep. 931 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

Andrew Heyman, for appellant. Timothy M. Grifflng, for respondents.

Bailey v. Gluth

Opinion of the Court

Cullen, J.

In the original return of the jus tice the testimony is presented

in a form that makes it difficult to discern what the evidence really was, but enough appears from the original and amended returns to show that a fair question of fact was presented to the justice for decision. As there was evidence to support the judgment, no error of law was committed, and this court has no power on appeal to consider the weight of evidence or disturb the finding of fact. Thurber v. Townsend, 22 N. Y. 517. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.