Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Robert Harford, Respondent, v. Charles A. Stoneham and Another, as Partners, Trading under the Firm Name of Charles A. Stoneham & Co., and Individually, Appellants, Impleaded with Others, Defendants
223 A.D. 820·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1928·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
First Department,
April, 1928.
Robert Harford, Respondent, v. Charles A. Stoneham and Another, as Partners, Trading under the Firm Name of Charles A. Stoneham & Co., and Individually, Appellants, Impleaded with Others, Defendants.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on June 4, 1927, and also from the order dated June 9, 1927, and entered in said clerk’s office.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The judgment and order are affirmed, with costs. While there are undoubtedly errors in the record, they are not sufficiently substantial to affect the result and, .therefore, must be disregarded under Civil Practice Act, section 106, especially when considered in connection with the whole record, which shows so clearly a bold and deliberate conspiracy fraudulently to convert on a large scale. A new trial would, in our opinion, reach the same result. Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and Proskauer, JJ. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.