
    MORGAN v. ENRIGHT et ux.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 28, 1898.)
    Review on Appeal—Weight op Evidence.
    The decision of a justice of the district Court on the facts will not be interfered with on appeal unless the evidence clearly indicates a mistake, or that fie had been influenced by prejudice or corruption, or that he neglected to deliberate on the whole testimony.
    Appeal from Eleventh district court.
    Action by James S. Morgan against Henry M. Enright and wife. From a judgment against the wife, they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before BEEKMAH, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.
    Albridge 0. Smith, for appellants.
    Dillon & Barrett, for respondent.
   GIEGERICH, J.

The action was brought to recover the sum of $144, alleged to have been loaned by the plaintiff to the defendants between the 2d day of June, 1897, and the 12th day of August, 1897. The pleadings are in writing. The defendants answered separately, but the answers are similar in all respects, each admitting that no part of the sum sued for has been paid, while denying each and every allegation of the complaint. At the trial there was a sharp conflict of evidence upon the issues thus raised, which the justice resolved in plaintiff’s favor, by rendering judgment against the defendant May McKenzie Enright, for $164.37, damages and costs, but dismissing the complaint as to the defendant Henry Enright.

The justice, having had the witnesses before him, and observed their conduct and demeanor while testifying, was undoubtedly better able to judge of their credibility, and determine the weight to be attached to their testimony, than is this appellate court; and we should not disturb his conclusion unless the evidence is of such a convincing character as to clearly indicate that there was a mistake on the part of the justice, or that he had been influenced by bias, passion, prejudice, or corruption, or that he had manifestly neglected to deliberate upon the whole testimony. Dempsey v. Paige, 4 E. D. Smith, 218, 219; Lynes v. Hickey, 4 Misc. Rep. 522, 24 N. Y. Supp. 731. A close scrutiny of the record does not lead to such a conclusion.

Although decided in his favor, Mr. Enright has joined his wife in an appeal from the judgment rendered, which, evidently, is due to an oversight. His co-defendant essays to reverse the judgment solely upon the facts; but, as we cannot discover any ground for disturbing •the justice’s determination thereof, the judgment should be affirmed,with costs. All concur.  