Brandt v. Mayor of New York — 49 N.Y. Super. Ct. 507

Majority

p. 507

CHARLES W. BRANDT, Respondent, v. THE MAYOR, &c., of NEW YORK, Appellants.

Headnote

Evidence—admission as to length of time of employment, what constitutes.— “ Oity Record ”—Statements in as evidence against Oity.

Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Truax and Ingraham, JJ.

Decided June 2. 1883.

Appeal from a judgment entered on verdict for plaintiff directed by the court.

The general term held on the former appeal (48Super. CL 293) that it did not “appear for what length of time the plaintiff was originally employed or appointed.” The only change inthe evidence, on this point, was the introduction by the plaintiff of the following extract from the “City Record” of January 31,1880: “ Officers and subordinates in the departments of the city and county government, with their salaries and residences, together with the judges, clerks, and attendants of the several courts held therein . . . Police Department: Street Cleaning Bureau. Name,

p. 508

Charles W. Brandt. Position, foreman of precinct. Residence 419 78th si reet. Salary $900 per annum.” This evidence was objected to as irrelevant, -immaterial and incompetent, and was received under exception.

The court at General Term, said: “This evidence did not prove, or tend to prove, that the plaintiff had been hired for any fixed length of time. It was simply an admission by the defendants that as long as he was continued under the existing agreement, he should be paid for his services at the rate of $900 per annum.”

D. J. Dean, for appellants.

Charles P. Miller, for respondent.

Opinion by Truax, J.; Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.