O'DONOHUE v. REUTH et al.

O’DONOHUE v. REUTH et al. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. December 26, 1900.) Appeal—Conflicting Evidence—Review Where, in an action by plaintiff to recover for personal injuries, the evidence was conflicting as to -who was responsible for the accident, and as to whether plaintiff contributed thereto, a judgment in favor of plaintiff will not be disturbed on appeal. Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan. Action for injuries by James O’Donohue against Joseph Reuth and Emil Bartolicus. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed. Argued before BEEEMAN, P. J., and GIEGERICH and O’GORMAN, JJ. J. H. K. Blauvelt, for appellants. Joseph R. Badigan, for respondent. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The. action is to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of a driver employed by the defendants. The plaintiff, on the 5th day of May, 1900, was riding a bicycle through the “Circle” in the city of New York, as that part of Fifty-Ninth street which intersects Seventh and Eighth avenues has become universally known, and was proceeding northward, when he was run into by a truck driven by an employé of the defendants, and which was moving in an opposite direction. There was a conflict of evidence as to who was responsible for the accident, and as to whether plaintiff contributed thereto. The justice resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiff, and we see no reason for disturbing his decision upon the facts. The record does not disclose a single exception taken by the defendants to adverse rulings of the trial justice. We conclude that the judgment was right, and should be affirmed, with costs.