
    KARPAS v. ENGELHARDT.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 24, 1899.)
    Appeal—Conflicting Evidence.
    A judgment depending merely on squarely conflicting evidence cannot be disturbed on appeal from the municipal court.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fourth district.
    Action by Adolph Karpas against Moore Engelhardt. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FBEEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEYEN-TRITT, JJ.
    Jacob D. Denenholz, for appellant.
    Max D. Steuer, for respondent.
   LEYENTBITT, J.

The plaintiff brings this action on an alleged oral agreement made between him and the defendant, who, as an agent of the Realty Trust Company, was engaged in selling lots belonging to that corporation. He contends that the agreement was to the effect that he was to receive from the defendant one-half of the commissions which the latter might earn upon the sales of the company’s real estate to purchasers introduced by the plaintiff. He claims that, pursuant to that agreement, a sale was effected to one Johnson; that the defendant received a commission, but refused to pay Mm his share. The defendant denies that he made any agreement whatsoever with the plaintiff, and denies that the purchaser was introduced by him. We can see in this case only a square conflict on questions of fact, which the justice resolved in favor of the defendant; and, while we might regard the version of the plaintiff as more plausible, yet, as the record does not disclose bias, prejudice, or injustice, we cannot, under the decisions of this court, disturb the judgment. Gair v. Cohen (Sup.; Feb., 1899) 56 N. Y. Supp. 180; Smith v. Davis, Id. 183. The judgment- must therefore be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent. All concur.  