215 A.D. 88 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1926
We do not disagree with the decisions cited in appellants’ points concerning the importance of the verdict of a jury, but on the record before us in this case we think we should not interfere with the order of the learned trial justice who saw and heard the witnesses. The trial justice is not simply a presiding officer; he has his responsibilities to the litigants as well as the jury. In the case at bar the learned justice doubtless was affected by the fact that' the sole witness to the transactions called by plaintiffs was Solomon Sack, one of the plaintiffs. According to his testimony he was accompanied by a man referred to by tffm as an “ independent broker,” but who, the defendant says, introduced himself originally as a buyer for plaintiffs or as one of the concern. This gentleman, who plaintiff Sack says was a Mr. Jacobus, although defendant’s treasurer says that was not his name, accompanied Mr. Sack throughout. He was not called as a witness by the plaintiffs, nor was any explanation given of their failure to call him. There is a flat contradiction between the story of- the plaintiff Sack and the treasurer and sales agent and office manager of the.defendant as to the occurrences at defendant’s factory. Mr. Sack says he paid the $500 to defendant prior to inspecting the goods purchased.
The order setting aside the verdict as contrary to the evidence and granting new trial should be affirmed, with costs to abide the event.
Present — Kelly, P. J., Rich, Jaycox, Manning and Young, JJ.
Order setting aside verdict as contrary to the evidence and granting a new trial unanimously affirmed, with costs to abide the event.