24 Misc. 765 | City of New York Municipal Court | 1898
This action was brought to recover the sum of $272 for the loss by the defendants of two packages of goods, which were delivered to them for delivery in Brooklyn, as plaintiff alleges. The answer is a general denial.
The evidence showed that the defendants conducted an express business under the name and style 'of the Hew York Dispatch & Delivery Company.
The defendants testified that not only two of their employees,, namely Rush and Bennett (both of whom testified that they had not received the lost goods) had charge of the route in which the plaintiff resided]., but, it appeared on the cross-examination of the witness Bennett, that another man was also in the employ of the defendants’ company who had also signed receipts for shipment of goods, which he received from the plaintiff for delivery by the defendants’ company.
The defendant Van Horn testified that he received all the goods that came in the office and kept all the records of such goods, and that he had never received nor recorded the goods in question. And other testimony was given with the view of showing that the-goods were never delivered to nor received by the defendants.
At the close of the plaintiff’s case, a motion to'dismiss the complaint was made.
It was properly denied, because taking the evidence in its most favorable aspect for the plaintiff, and conceding him all the inferences of its legal import, it was impossible to say .that the jury would not have been justified in finding for the plaintiff.
Beside, the motion to dismiss the complaint was not renewed at the close of the entire case, there was no motion made- fof a direction nor were there any exceptions taken to the charge of the trial' justice, nor were any requests to charge submitted to him by the counsel for the defendants.
Ro other questions being presented for review, the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Conlan and Schuchman, JJ., concur.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.