Grocz v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grocz v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

174 A.D. 505, 161 N.Y.S. 117, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8186

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 20, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 A.D. 505 (Grocz v. Delaware & Hudson Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grocz v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 174 A.D. 505, 161 N.Y.S. 117, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Putnam, J.:

What the interpreter rendered to Orippen as plaintiff’s answers should have been received. (People v. Randazzio, 194 N. Y. 147; Wright v. Maseras, 56 Barb. 521; Commonwealth v. Vose, 157 Mass. 393; Wigm. Ev. §§ 667, 668, 812; Chamberlayne Ev. § 2612; Jones Ev. [2d. ed.] § 265.)

The contention that, in order to let in such testimony, there must be an express agency through personal selection- of the interpreter, or an authority implied from near relationship to the one being interpreted, is negatived by People v. Randazzio (supra), where the interpreter was a stranger to the prisoner, called in by the district attorney. Nor is it essential that the interpreter be himself produced as a witness. Plaintiff’s previous testimony as to what this interpreter had rendered into Polish as the terms of Orippen’s offer made admissible what, through that same medium, had been translated and communicated in English to Orippen.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Putnam, J.:

What the interpreter rendered to Orippen as plaintiff’s answers should have been received. (People v. Randazzio, 194 N. Y. 147; Wright v. Maseras, 56 Barb. 521; Commonwealth v. Vose, 157 Mass. 393; Wigm. Ev. §§ 667, 668, 812; Chamberlayne Ev. § 2612; Jones Ev. [2d. ed.] § 265.)

The contention that, in order to let in such testimony, there must be an express agency through personal selection- of the interpreter, or an authority implied from near relationship to the one being interpreted, is negatived by People v. Randazzio (supra), where the interpreter was a stranger to the prisoner, called in by the district attorney. Nor is it essential that the interpreter be himself produced as a witness. Plaintiff’s previous testimony as to what this interpreter had rendered into Polish as the terms of Orippen’s offer made admissible what, through that same medium, had been translated and communicated in English to Orippen.

The judgment and order should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D. 505, 161 N.Y.S. 117, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grocz-v-delaware-hudson-co-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack