Castor v. Bavington
This text of 2 Watts & Serg. 505 (Castor v. Bavington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It is impossible to distinguish the principle of this case from that of Ellmaker v. Buckley, in which it was ruled that a party shall not introduce his case to the jury through a cross-examination of his adversary’s witnesses. Here the attempt was plainly to cross-examine to matter entirely new, with a view, not to test the truth of the witness as to what he had said-&emdash;the legitimate end of a cross-examination&emdash;but to lay his defence before the jury untrammelled by the rules of a direct examination; and this certainly cannot be done. The questions were, therefore, properly suppressed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Watts & Serg. 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castor-v-bavington-pa-1841.