Huson v. Egan

New York Court of Common Pleas

Huson v. Egan

6 N.Y.S. 661, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 906, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 730

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedJuly 22, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 N.Y.S. 661 (Huson v. Egan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huson v. Egan, 6 N.Y.S. 661, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 906, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 730 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

“Where it clearly appears that a witness has made a mistake in giving his testimony in a material point in the cause, the court may in its discretion grant a new trial.” Coddington v. Hunt, 6 Hill, 595; 3 Wait, Pr. 415. There is no doubt that the witness Van Pelt misunderstood the question put to him, and gave an answer the very opposite of that which he would have given if he had answered understandingly. The answer was vital in its importance, for upon it the jury were warranted in finding that the plaintiff had substantially performed her contract, and that the defects in the dress were slight, and easily corrected. The case was fairly tried, and the charge of the jury was full, clear, impartial, and instructive, but we doubt if justice was done, and therefore reverse the judgment, and order a new trial. But, as we are granting a favor, we must award the costs of the appeal to the respondent, though they will abide the event of the action.

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

Per Curiam.

“Where it clearly appears that a witness has made a mistake in giving his testimony in a material point in the cause, the court may in its discretion grant a new trial.” Coddington v. Hunt, 6 Hill, 595; 3 Wait, Pr. 415. There is no doubt that the witness Van Pelt misunderstood the question put to him, and gave an answer the very opposite of that which he would have given if he had answered understandingly. The answer was vital in its importance, for upon it the jury were warranted in finding that the plaintiff had substantially performed her contract, and that the defects in the dress were slight, and easily corrected. The case was fairly tried, and the charge of the jury was full, clear, impartial, and instructive, but we doubt if justice was done, and therefore reverse the judgment, and order a new trial. But, as we are granting a favor, we must award the costs of the appeal to the respondent, though they will abide the event of the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.Y.S. 661, 25 N.Y. St. Rep. 906, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huson-v-egan-nyctcompl-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack