
    WEIL v. AUERBACH.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    Appeal and Erbob (§ 1003)—Verdict—Conoltjsiveness.
    A verdict which is not against the evidence and the weight of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3938; Dec. Dig. § 1003.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Sixth District.
    Action by Myron L. Weil against Herman Auerbach. From a judgment for defendant on his counterclaim, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    
      Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall (Leon N. Futter, on the brief), for appellant.
    Horowitz & Esberg (Adolph Freyer, of counsel), for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   GIEGERICH, J.

The plaintiff sued for money loaned. The defendant denied the loan and counterclaimed for moneys advanced to the plaintiff for investment, and which, it was claimed, he had failed to invest as directed. The jury found for the defendant on his counterclaim and judgment was rendered in his favor for $534.50 damages and costs.

The appellant concedes that the appeal rests solely upon the ground that the verdict is against the evidence and the weight of evidence. We have examined the record and are of the opinion that such point is not well taken.

The judgment is therefore affirmed, with costs. All concur.  