Hirsh v. American District Telegraph Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirsh v. American District Telegraph Co.

92 N.Y.S. 794

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 794 (Hirsh v. American District Telegraph Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirsh v. American District Telegraph Co., 92 N.Y.S. 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

The defendant, in its answer, denied that the plaintiff was the assignee of the claim upon which this action is based. The assignor, the plaintiff’s only witness, was cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel as follows:

“Q. You have assigned this claim, as I understand? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are still interested in the result of this suit, are you not? Plaintiff’s Counsel: I object to that. (Objection sustained.) Defendant’s Counsel: I wish to show /his interest as a witness; that is all. The Court: I sustain the objection. (Exception.) Q. Have you assigned this under an arrangement by which the result of the suit will affect whether it amounts to the payment or not on a transaction? Plaintiff’s Counsel: Objected to on. the ground that it Is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. (Objection sustained: Exception.)”

This cross-examination was proper, as tending to show that the plaintiff was an interested witness. It related to the weight and credibility of his testimony, and was therefore proper matter for submission to the jury. The exceptions by the defendant’s counsel to the exclusion of this cross-examination were well taken, and discloses a material error, which calls for the reversal of the judgment. Vaughn v. Westover, 2 Hun, 43; Cady v. Bradshaw, 116 N. Y. 188, 22 N. E. 371, 5 L. R. A. 557.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event All concur.

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

BLANCHARD, J.

The defendant, in its answer, denied that the plaintiff was the assignee of the claim upon which this action is based. The assignor, the plaintiff’s only witness, was cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel as follows:

“Q. You have assigned this claim, as I understand? A. Yes, sir. Q. You are still interested in the result of this suit, are you not? Plaintiff’s Counsel: I object to that. (Objection sustained.) Defendant’s Counsel: I wish to show /his interest as a witness; that is all. The Court: I sustain the objection. (Exception.) Q. Have you assigned this under an arrangement by which the result of the suit will affect whether it amounts to the payment or not on a transaction? Plaintiff’s Counsel: Objected to on. the ground that it Is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. (Objection sustained: Exception.)”

This cross-examination was proper, as tending to show that the plaintiff was an interested witness. It related to the weight and credibility of his testimony, and was therefore proper matter for submission to the jury. The exceptions by the defendant’s counsel to the exclusion of this cross-examination were well taken, and discloses a material error, which calls for the reversal of the judgment. Vaughn v. Westover, 2 Hun, 43; Cady v. Bradshaw, 116 N. Y. 188, 22 N. E. 371, 5 L. R. A. 557.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsh-v-american-district-telegraph-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack