Wachholder v. Paull

(after stating the facts as above). Appellant insists that the finding of the jury that he knew when he signed the contract of March 22, 1923, that it contained the stipulation that Pauli might “sublease the whole of the building,” was without testimony to support it. It is true that appellant, , testifying as a witness, said that he did not read the instrument before he signed it, and did not know it contained said stipulation, and it is also true that there was no direct testimony to the contrary. But the jury were not bound by what appellant said, and, if they disbelieved him, had a right…