34 A.D. 293 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1898
This case has been twice before the Appellate Division (10 App. Div. 198 ; 19 id. 139) upon substantially similar evidence, and it is. not, therefore, necessary to rehearse again the facts as they were disclosed upon the trial. The learned court- upon the last trial of the case in its charge laid down some general rules of law and stated some contentions upon the part of the defendant, but seems to have" failed to instruct the jury as to the application of these general rules of law to the case at bar, and also to have omitted to inform, the jury as to what should-be the result should they find any or all of the contentions of the defendant as to the facts to be well founded.
The learned counsel for the defendant made various requests to charge, but in most of them he failed to recognize the distinction existing between voyage and time policies. The 7th request, however, it would, seem that the defendant was entitled to have pre
The judgment and order appealed from .must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.
Patterson, O’Brien, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred.
Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.