Hazard v. N.Y.B. P.R.R. Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Hazard v. N.Y.B. P.R.R. Co.

2 R.I. 62

DecidedFebruary 6, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 2 R.I. 62 (Hazard v. N.Y.B. P.R.R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hazard v. N.Y.B. P.R.R. Co., 2 R.I. 62 (R.I. 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

It is undoubtedly the general rule, that the sworn testimony of a witness cannot be discredited by proof of contradictory statements, unless his attention has first been directed to them and opportunity given him to explain them. But the question is whether this is an inflexible rule. In this case the defendant was not present at the taking of the deposition, and had no notice of it. He could not cross-examine the witness, and was deprived of this advantage without any fault on his part. If he has no right to show that the witness has contradicted himself, he loses an important right without any fault of his, and to establish such a rule would hold out inducements to parties to take advantage of the absence of the adverse parties to take their testimony. We do not think the rule of law referred to is so inflexible as to require this.

HAILE, J., dissentiente.

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

It is undoubtedly the general rule, that the sworn testimony of a witness cannot be discredited by proof of contradictory statements, unless his attention has first been directed to them and opportunity given him to explain them. But the question is whether this is an inflexible rule. In this case the defendant was not present at the taking of the deposition, and had no notice of it. He could not cross-examine the witness, and was deprived of this advantage without any fault on his part. If he has no right to show that the witness has contradicted himself, he loses an important right without any fault of his, and to establish such a rule would hold out inducements to parties to take advantage of the absence of the adverse parties to take their testimony. We do not think the rule of law referred to is so inflexible as to require this.

HAILE, J., dissentiente.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 R.I. 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazard-v-nyb-prr-co-ri-1851.