Healey v. Wellesley & Boston Street Railway Co.

57 N.E. 703, 176 Mass. 440, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 938
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided June 21, 1900·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Morton, J.

The evidence to which the plaintiff excepted was admitted, as the exceptions state, solely for the purpose of contradicting Michael Healey, who was foreman of the gang in which the plaintiff worked, and who had testified how much the plaintiff was absent for several days following the accident. The time book from which the witness Child was allowed to testify was turned in to him by Michael Healey, and showed “ the time worked by the employees in his gang during December, 1897, and up to October, 1898.” Whether the entries were actually made by Michael Healey or not was immaterial. His act in turning the book in as the record of the time worked by the men in his gang amounted to a representation that they had worked the time therein set down, and as such evidence of the entries was admissible to contradict him. See Brigham v. Clark, 100 Mass. 430; Handy v. Canning, 166 Mass. 107.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Healey v. Wellesley & Boston Street Railway Co., 57 N.E. 703, 176 Mass. 440, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 938 (Mass. 1900).

57 N.E. 703 (Healey v. Wellesley & Boston Street Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp.
423 N.E.2d 793 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1981)
State v. Harris
64 S.W.2d 256 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Steffen Ex Rel. Steffen v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
56 S.W.2d 47 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)