
    BARD v. GLUCK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    Appeal and Ebbob (§ 1002)—Vebdict in Conflicting Evidence—Conclusiveness.
    Though the appellate court might have felt constrained to find for defendant if the question came to them in the first instance, there being many inconsistencies in the evidence submitted on both sides, a verdict for plaintiff will not be disturbed.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3935; Dec. Dig. § 1002.*]
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Alexander Bard against Daniel Gluck. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    Ira E. Miller, for appellant.
    Bogart & Bogart, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   HENDRICK, J.

There are many inconsistencies in the evidence submitted on both sides, and notwithstanding that, if the question came to us in the first instance, we might have felt ourselves constrained to find for the defendant, the jury’s verdict should not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.  