
    James H. Styler, Respondent, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.
    
      Conflict of testimony — the verdict of a jury not distitf'bed.
    
    "Where testimony upon the trial of an action to recover damages resulting from personal injuries to the plaintiff is contradictory, and that offered by the plaintiff makes a cause of action for him, and that on the part of the defendant is sufficient to relieve the defendant from'liability, the case is properly submitted to the jury, and it is to be assumed that the jury believed the testimony of the witness called by the party in whose favor a verdict is rendered, and the court will not disturb such a verdict.
    Appeal by tlie defendant, The Long Island Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Kings on the 24th day of March, 1893, and from an order entered in said cleric’s office on the same day, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      W. G. Beecher, for the appellant.
    
      Thomas E. Pearsall, for the respondent.
   Dykman, J.:

- This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial upon the minutes of the court.

The action is for the recovery of damages resulting from a personal injury to the plaintiff by reason of the negligence of the defendant.

The testimony upon the trial was contradictory, that on the part of the plaintiff making a cause of action for him, and that on the part of the defendant sufficient to exculpate the company.

It was, therefore, a proper case for the jury, and the trial judge .submitted the same in a charge which was eminently fair towards the defendant, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

"We must assume, therefore, that the testimony on the part of the plaintiff commanded the belief of the jury and in that view the verdict cannot be disturbed.

We find, no error, and tlie judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt and Cullen, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order denying motion for new trial affirmed, with costs.  