
    GLEASON, Respondent, v. THORN et al., Appellants.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    October 29, 1895.)
    Action by Thomas Jay Gleason against Charles W. Thorn and another.
    Davis, Short & Townsend, for appellant. L. J. Morrison, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

The answer alleges that the books in question were to be boundl in a good quality of leather. That allegation is specifically referred to because it is quite apparent from the record that the leather used in the covering of the books was the main cause of this litigation. Therefore, it seems to us that, if the evidence shows that the leather so used was good, the judgment should stand. All through the case we find the usual conflict of testimony. On plaintiff’s behalf it is claimed that the contract was fully performed. On defendants’ side the contrary is claimed, but the defendants’ witnesses apparently were not judges of good leather, and their evidence seems to rest mainly on their fancy; their testimony, in substance, being that they did not like the leather as much as the sample, and, in their opinion, it was not the same. Evidently, their opinion was not entitled to as much credibility or weight as was the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses, who are experienced men; and the jury were justified in so finding. It seems to us that no error was committed, and that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs. McCARTHY, J., concurs.  