Purdy v. Dinkle — 2 Silv. Sup. 514

Majority

p. 514

Oscar Purdy, Respondent, v. John Dinkle, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,

June 28, 1889.

Headnote

Appeal. From justice’s court.—Where objections to the drawing and organizing of the jury in justice’s court are merely technical, and do-not involve or affect the merits, the county corut, upon an appeal on questions of law only, may give judgment according to the right of the case, without regard to technical errors.

Appeal from a judgment of a county court, affirming a. judgment recovered in justice’s court.

Wm. H. H. Ely, for appellant.

James S. Millard, for respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court affirming a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant upon a trial before a jury in a court of a justice of the peace.

p. 515

The appeal to the county court was on question of law only.

The action was for the recovery of commission on the sale of a horse, and there was ample testimony to sustain the verdict of the jury.

The appellant complains of irregularities in drawing and organizing the jury, but as the objections are merely technical and did not involve or affect the merits, the county court might give judgment according to the right of the’ case without regard to technical errors.

We, therefore, think the judgment of the county court should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.