
    George W. Hill, Resp’t, v. William Remsen, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed June 25, 1888.)
    
    Appeal—When verdict will not be disturbed by appellate court.
    Where upon a trial the evidence was conflicting and the case was submitted to the jury upon a charge which was entirely fair, no exception being taken, the verdict will not be disturbed by the appellate court.
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict of a. jury at the King’s county circuit.
    
      Carpenter & Roderick, for app’lt; A. P. Carlin, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

This action was brought to recover the sum of ninety dollars for services claimed to have been rendered by the plaintiff for the defendant as a watchman in the summer and fall of 1886. The plaintiff was employed by Mr. Vanderveer as a night watchman at Coney Island, and the defendant Remsem had a small express office which he rented from Mr. Vanderveer near the place where the plaintiff performed his services as night watchman. It was the claim of the plaintiff that Remsen employed him to watch the express office as well as the office of Mr. Vanderveer, and that he did so during the four months in 1886, for which he claimed to recover the sum of ninety dollars as a reasonable compensation.

His employment was sharply contested upon the trial, and there was much testimony introduced upon that question, and it was plain that no recovery could be had by the plaintiff unless he could establish a contract of employment by the defendant.

The case was submitted to the jury in a charge that was entirely fair, and to which there was no exception. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for fifty dollars and the defendant has appealed from the judgment.

The evidence upon the trial was so contradictory, and the questions of fact were so sharply controverted, that it was eminently a proper case for the determination of a jury, and it would be unsafe for an appellate court to make any interference with the verdict.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.  