Hinkelman v. Pasteelnick

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Hinkelman v. Pasteelnick

130 A. 441, 3 N.J. Misc. 1010, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69

DecidedOctober 7, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A. 441 (Hinkelman v. Pasteelnick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hinkelman v. Pasteelnick, 130 A. 441, 3 N.J. Misc. 1010, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for injuries received by her in being run down by a truck of the defendant while she was crossing Twenty-first street, in the town of Irvington. The trial resulted in a verdict in her favor, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

The only ground upon which a reversal is sought is an alleged error on the part of- the trial court in permitting Dr. Bien, who was the plaintiff’s physician, and attended her in the hospital, to look at an X-ray plate which he was unable to say was a photograph of the plaintiff’s leg after her injury, •and to testify that an inspection of this plate refreshed his recollection as to the condition of the bones in Mrs. Hinkelman’s foot. The testimony was objected to on the ground that it was improper to permit the doctor to refresh his recollection by the use of a photograph that he could not swear was taken of the plaintiff’s foot or leg.

[1011]*1011We think that the objection was without merit. Anything which will refresh the recollection of a witness may be looked at by him for that purpose, although, in itself, it is not evidential.

We conclude, therefore, that the judgment under review should be affirmed.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for injuries received by her in being run down by a truck of the defendant while she was crossing Twenty-first street, in the town of Irvington. The trial resulted in a verdict in her favor, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

The only ground upon which a reversal is sought is an alleged error on the part of- the trial court in permitting Dr. Bien, who was the plaintiff’s physician, and attended her in the hospital, to look at an X-ray plate which he was unable to say was a photograph of the plaintiff’s leg after her injury, •and to testify that an inspection of this plate refreshed his recollection as to the condition of the bones in Mrs. Hinkelman’s foot. The testimony was objected to on the ground that it was improper to permit the doctor to refresh his recollection by the use of a photograph that he could not swear was taken of the plaintiff’s foot or leg.

[1011]*1011We think that the objection was without merit. Anything which will refresh the recollection of a witness may be looked at by him for that purpose, although, in itself, it is not evidential.

We conclude, therefore, that the judgment under review should be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A. 441, 3 N.J. Misc. 1010, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkelman-v-pasteelnick-nj-1925.