Demerritt v. Randall
116 Mass. 331, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 99
Opinion
The experts were rightly permitted to testify to their opinion of the genuineness of the signature of the testatrix, and to their reasons for such opinion. Moody v. Rowell, 17 Pick. 490. Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295. Keith v. Lothrop, 10 Cush. 453.
How many times the same question should be repeated on cross-examination, and how far the witness should be compelled to answer, were matters within the discretion of the presiding judge, and not subjects of exception. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Demerritt v. Randall, 116 Mass. 331, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 99 (Mass. 1874).
116 Mass. 331 (Demerritt v. Randall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commonwealth v. Shea
82 N.E.2d 511 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Preston v. Peck
171 N.E. 54 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Guinan v. Famous Players-Lasky Corp.
167 N.E. 235 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Commonwealth v. Bosworth
153 N.E. 455 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Bulger v. People
151 P. 937 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1915)
Smith v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
94 N.E. 315 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Commonwealth v. Parsons
81 N.E. 291 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
O'Neill v. Beland
133 Ill. App. 594 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Squier v. Barnes
78 N.E. 731 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Quincy Gas & Electric Co. v. Schmitt
123 Ill. App. 647 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1906)
Commonwealth v. Coughlin
66 N.E. 207 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
McLeod v. . Bullard
84 N.C. 515 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
Hawkins v. City of Fall River
119 Mass. 94 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1875)