Carr v. West End Street Railway Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Carr v. West End Street Railway Co.

40 N.E. 185, 163 Mass. 360, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 111

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided April 2, 1895·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The testimony as to the plaintiff’s habits was not admissible to contradict the evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Neither was it admissible to meet the testimony brought out by the plaintiff on cross-examination, that he had been seen intoxicated several times before the accident. The latter testimony was immaterial, and the plaintiff was not entitled to contradict it. McCarty v. Leary, 118 Mass. 509. Shurtleff v. Parker, 130 Mass. 293, 297. Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay, 162 Mass. 339. Alexander v. Kaiser, 149 Mass. 321. Harrington v. Lincoln, 2 Gray, 133.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Holmes, J.

The testimony as to the plaintiff’s habits was not admissible to contradict the evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Neither was it admissible to meet the testimony brought out by the plaintiff on cross-examination, that he had been seen intoxicated several times before the accident. The latter testimony was immaterial, and the plaintiff was not entitled to contradict it. McCarty v. Leary, 118 Mass. 509. Shurtleff v. Parker, 130 Mass. 293, 297. Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay, 162 Mass. 339. Alexander v. Kaiser, 149 Mass. 321. Harrington v. Lincoln, 2 Gray, 133.

Exceptions sustained.

Carr v. West End Street Railway Co., 40 N.E. 185, 163 Mass. 360, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 111 (Mass. 1895).

Pincite

40 N.E. 185 (Carr v. West End Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related