Barrett v. Smith

Superior Court of New York

Barrett v. Smith

19 N.Y.S. 1020

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJuly 5, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 19 N.Y.S. 1020 (Barrett v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. Smith, 19 N.Y.S. 1020 (superctny 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was not error to allow the plaintiff to show that the witness Vero had said at the time of his arrest: “Is this the 108th street racket?” for this evidence tended to show that Vero testified untruly when he, upon his direct examination, said: “Ho unusual accident was brought to my attention, except when I was arrested.” Upon the whole case the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

It was not error to allow the plaintiff to show that the witness Vero had said at the time of his arrest: “Is this the 108th street racket?” for this evidence tended to show that Vero testified untruly when he, upon his direct examination, said: “Ho unusual accident was brought to my attention, except when I was arrested.” Upon the whole case the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.Y.S. 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-smith-superctny-1892.