Carr v. West End Street Railway Co.
This text of 40 N.E. 185 (Carr v. West End Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
40 N.E. 185, 163 Mass. 360, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-west-end-street-railway-co-mass-1895.