
    HYNES v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 28, 1900.)
    Conflicting Evidence—Question of Fact—Appeal—Verdict not Disturbed. A verdict rendered on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.
    Appeal from city court of Hew York, general term.
    Action for injuries by Margaret Hynes against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From a judgment of the city court of Hew York, general term (64 N. Y. Supp. 382), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
    Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.
    Alfred & 'Charles Steckler, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff testified that she signaled to the conductor to stop the car when he passed Hinety-Seventh street; that the car stopped at Ninety-Eighth street, and as she was about getting off it was suddenly started, and she was thrown to the ground and received severe injuries. That the car stopped at Ninety-Eighth street is denied by but one person,—the conductor of the car, who testified that the car had not, to his recollection, stopped at Ninety-Eighth street. The other witnesses would not swear that the car had not stopped at Ninety-Eighth street. The case presented a question of fact for the jury, and, there being evidence to sustain the verdict, the case presents no question of law for our consideration.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.  