
    Herman Grassley, Respondent, v. Patrick J. McArdle, Appellant.
    
      Finding of a jury against the preponderance of evidence — when sustained.
    
    "Where there is a conflict of evidence and the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the defendant, and a jury has rendered a 'verdict for the plaintiff, unless such preponderance is so great as to indicate that the finding of the jury against the defendant was brought about by passion, prejudice or corruption, such finding should be sustained.
    Appeal by the defendant, Patrick J. McArdle, from a judgment of the County Court of the county of Albany in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 21st day of April, 1893, uj)on the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 23d day of May, 1S93, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    
      P. E. Du Bois, for the appellant.
    
      George Addington, for the respondent.
   Herrick, J.:

I have carefully read the testimony in this case, and, while the preponderance of the evidence seems to be in favor of the defendant, still, when it is considered that the jury had the witnesses before them to observe their appearance, and the manner of giving their testimony, that preponderance is not so great as to indicate that the finding of the jury against the defendant was brought about by passion, prejudice or corruption.

There was a conflict of evidence, and it was for the jury to determine where the truth was.

The exceptions taken during the progress of the trial are not sufficiently important to cause a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, there being no occasion for an opinion.

Mayham, P. J., and Putnam, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  