
    HALPERIN v. CALLANDAR.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    April 27, 1896.)
    Appeal—Sufficiency of Evidence.
    Where the question involved is one of fact, and the evidence is conflicting, a verdict will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by William Halperin against William E. Callandar. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant apeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS and MCCARTHY, JJ.
    Andrew M. Clute, for appellant.
    Marshall B. Clarke, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

The respondent’s claim that the defendant agreed to pay him and his assignor each one-third of the commission earned upon the procurement of the loan of $17,000 to Goldmann is well sustained by the evidence. The defendant’s version of the transaction in question the jury chose to disregard, as they had a right to do, and to believe plaintiff’s statement of said transaction.

The question in dispute was one of fact for the jury to determine, and their conclusion we find no reason for reversing. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.  