Burkholz v. Gilder

New York Court of Common Pleas

Burkholz v. Gilder

6 N.Y.S. 959, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 745, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 901

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided June 27, 1889·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The letters of the witness Mackay were irrelevant to the issues in the action. They related to, and were written during the existence of, a former transaction in the year 1886, which had been closed and settled. Their introduction in evidence against the objection of the defendants was ■error. As we are unable to say that the minds of the jury were not affected by this evidence, to the prejudice of the defendants, there must be a new trial. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

The letters of the witness Mackay were irrelevant to the issues in the action. They related to, and were written during the existence of, a former transaction in the year 1886, which had been closed and settled. Their introduction in evidence against the objection of the defendants was ■error. As we are unable to say that the minds of the jury were not affected by this evidence, to the prejudice of the defendants, there must be a new trial. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Burkholz v. Gilder, 6 N.Y.S. 959, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 745, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 901 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

6 N.Y.S. 959 (Burkholz v. Gilder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.