
    PHILLIPS v. YARTER.
    (Supremo Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
    January 5, 1916.)
    Appeal and Esror ©=>1001—Review—Verdict.
    A judgment in plaintiff’s favor cannot be upheld, where it obviously appeared that plaintiff himself gave false testimony on a material issue involved.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3922, 3928-8934; Dec. Dig. ©=>1001.]
    Appeal from Special Term, Saratoga County.
    Action by Napoleon Phillips against Napoleon Yarter. There was judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying defendant’s motion for new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and motion granted.
    Argued before KELLOGG, P. J., and LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
    Rogers & Sawyer, of Hudson Falls (J. E. Sawyer, of Hudson Falls, of counsel), for appellant.
    Young & Young, of Hudson Falls (W. Chase Young, of Hudson Falls, of counsel), for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

Without entering into an elaborate analysis of the evidence in this case, it may be stated that the plaintiff himself obviously gave false testimony on a material issue involved. This is not even denied, and is not satisfactorily explained. Under the circumstances disclosed, a judgment so obtained cannot be permitted to stand without a reflection upon the administration of justice by the courts.

The order denying motion for a new trial should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant to abide the event, and motion granted, without costs.  