Cullinan v. Reich
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
As the defendants were compelled to rest their defense upon negative evidence, the court should have allowed the questions of fact to go to the jury. (People v. Coombes, 36 App. Div. 284, affd. 158 N. Y. 532.) The defendants did not “ suffer or permit ” the premises to be disorderly, because the conversation between the women in the restaurant and the plaintiff’s witnesses was not overheard.
Read the full summary
As the defendants were compelled to rest their defense upon negative evidence, the court should have allowed the questions of fact to go to the jury. (People v. Coombes, 36 App. Div. 284, affd. 158 N. Y. 532.) The defendants did not “ suffer or permit ” the premises to be disorderly, because the conversation between the women in the restaurant and the plaintiff’s witnesses was not overheard. (Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464; Gregory v. U. S. 17 Blatch. 325.) The defendants kept a hotel, sold liquor only with meals, and the case should be treated as if the Trial Court had permitted an amendment…
1Opinion of the Court
The correctness of the watches of plaintiff’s witnesses was established by comparison with standard New York city time as used at police headquarters and regulated at Tiffany’s.
The denials as to sales between twelve and one o’clock a. m. Sundays were so indefinite as to raise ho issue for the jury, or require the submission of the question as to credibility of plaintiff’s witnesses. (Culhane v. City, 60 N. Y. 133; Same v. Same, 67 Barb. 562; Tolman v. Syracuse, 27 Hun, 325; Taylor v. Ry. Co. 16 App. Div. 1.)
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Culhane v. . N.Y. Cen. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Culhane v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1876
- Taylor v. Long Island RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897