
    (23 Misc. Rep. 125.)
    CONROY v. ALLEN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 28, 1898.)
    1. Appeal—Review.
    The appellate term of the supreme court will not disturb the conclusion of the trial justice upon a question of fact, unless it is manifest that it was against the weight of evidence.
    2. Same.
    The appellate court, having no opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses or the manner in which they gave their testimony, is seldom in a position to satisfactorily reviaw a decision upon the facts where the determination of the case rests upon a question of credibility.
    Appeal from Second district court.
    Action by John H. Conroy against Frank S. Allen. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGEBICH, JJ.
    William L. Stone, Jr., for appellant.
    I. Newton Williams, for respondent.
   BEEKMAN, P. J.

The only question involved in this appeal is one of fact, and the rule is well established that this court will not disturb the conclusion of the trial justice upon such a question, unless it is manifest that it was against the weight of evidence. After a careful examination of the proofs, we are unable to find that such was the case here. The determination of the facts required the trial justice to pass upon the veracity of the witnesses. He had them before him, and observed their demeanor on the witness stand, and the manner in which they gave their testimony. These are matters which may be legitimately considered where such a question is to be determined; but, from the nature of the case, they are not susceptible. of reproduction in the minutes of the trial. The appellate court is therefore seldom in a position to satisfactorily review a decision upon the facts where the determination of the case rests upon a question of credibility. We therefore feel constrained to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.  