
    LENEHAN v. HAMILTON STORAGE & WAREHOUSE CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    May 17, 1900.)
    Appeal and Error—Uncorroborated Testimony—'Warehousemen—Prejudicial Error.
    Where the jury was warranted in disbelieving plaintiff's uncorroborated testimony, on which her case entirely depended, and evidently believed plaintiff had received from a warehouseman all the goods delivered, a judgment for such warehouseman will not be disturbed on appeal in absence of prejudicial error.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Ninth district. Action by Catherine Lenehan against the Hamilton Storage & Warehouse Company. From a judgment in' favor of the defendant,, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
    Joseph Berheld, for appellant.
    Benjamin Baker, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff’s case depends entirely upon her uncorroborated testimony, which it is evident the jury did not believe. The plaintiff’s story is of such a nature that we cannot 'say that the jury was not warranted in not believing, it. It is evident that the jury believed that the plaintiff received from the defendant all the goods that she had delivered to the defendant. There were no errors made on the trial by the learned trial justice that call for a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  