
    OLSEN v. MAHONEY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 24, 1905.)
    Appeal—Review—Findings—Conflicting Evidence.
    A finding for plaintiff, based on conflicting testimony, will not be disturbed on appeal, though the preponderance 'appears to be for defendant.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 3983-3989.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of the Bronx, Second District.
    Action by Cornelius Olsen against Robert J. Mahoney. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    „ Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and Mac-LEAN, JJ.
    Claude Cignoux, for appellant.
    Daniel S. Decker, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The denials of the plaintiff’s evidence are so explicit and its contradiction so circumstantial as to impress a person knowing the case only by perusal of the trial minutes with a preponderance in favor of the defendant; but the manner of the witnesses in testifying and their appearance may have been such as to justify the learned trial justice in his finding and judgment, which will not be disturbed here.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  