
    John Flannery, App’lt, v. J. Wesley Van Tassell, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed May 12, 1890.)
    
    1. Appeal — Presumption op correctness op charge.'
    Where the charge of the trial judge is not contained in the case, the appellate court will assume that no error is claimed against the charge, ant that the instructions to the jury were correct.
    3. Fraud — Evidence.
    Where the bona fidee of a bill of sale is in issue, evidence as to declara tians of the maker prior to the execution thereof as to his financial sitúa tian, and as to his declarations at the time of an attachment of the good] which he remained in possession of after giving the hill of sale, is af missible.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered oj verdict.
    Action for conversion of a stock of groceries, etc., which wal seized by defendant, as sheriff, under an attachment against on! McManus who had previously given a bill of sale to plaintiff, i| consideration of his paying an indebtedness of McManus to tl village as treasurer, and two notes on which plaintiff was endorse!
    On the trial evidence was admitted of statements made by M<] Manus, to one of the attaching creditors, before the giving of th bill of sale, as to his financial condition, and of declarations McManus at the time of the attachment, at which time he was sti| in possession of the goods.
    
      H. H. JIustis, for app’lt; Grant B. Taylor [Howard Thornto\ of counsel), for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This is an action for the recovery of damages fj •the wrongful conversion of a stock of merchandise. The plaintij claimed to own the goods by virtue of a purchase and a bill sale from Edward McManus, the former owner, and the defendant, who is the sheriff of Dutchess county, justified his seizure of the goods under an attachment issued in favor of Barnes and Mapes against the property of Edward M’Manus, and placed in the hands of the sheriff for execution.

The success of the plaintiff in this action depended upon the validity of his purchase from McManus, which was alleged to be fraudulent by the defendant

The cause was tried at the circuit before a jury, and a verdict-was rendered in favor of the defendant, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict, and the order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes, the plaintiff has appealed.

The charge of the trial judge is not contained in the case, and we are, therefore, to assume that no error is claimed against the charge, and that the instructions to the jury were correct

There were exceptions to the admission of testimony, but they present no error. '

The testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from it, was amply sufficient to support the verdict rendered by the jury, and an examination of the evidence by us is neither requisite nor necessary. We find no difficulty in justifying the verdict and judgment and order.

The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs.  