Marshall v. Riley

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Marshall v. Riley

38 Misc. 770, 78 N.Y.S. 827

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Misc. 770 (Marshall v. Riley) 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

Marshall v. Riley, 38 Misc. 770, 78 N.Y.S. 827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, P. J.

At the trial the defendants endeavored to show by the testimony of two witnesses who had witnessed and described plaintiff’s condition that at the time the plaintiff was ordered to leave the lighter as claimed by him, and at the time he voluntarily left defendants’ employ, as claimed by defendants, he was drunk. It seems that all testimony upon this point was excluded upon the ground that it called for a conclusion and that the witnesses should have been qualified. This was error within the rule as laid down in People v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 562; People v. Gaynor, 33 App. Div. 98; Donoho v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 30 Misc. Rep. 433.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide the event.

Gildersleeve and MaoLean, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide event.

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

Freedman, P. J.

At the trial the defendants endeavored to show by the testimony of two witnesses who had witnessed and described plaintiff’s condition that at the time the plaintiff was ordered to leave the lighter as claimed by him, and at the time he voluntarily left defendants’ employ, as claimed by defendants, he was drunk. It seems that all testimony upon this point was excluded upon the ground that it called for a conclusion and that the witnesses should have been qualified. This was error within the rule as laid down in People v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 562; People v. Gaynor, 33 App. Div. 98; Donoho v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 30 Misc. Rep. 433.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide the event.

Gildersleeve and MaoLean, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Misc. 770, 78 N.Y.S. 827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-riley-nyappterm-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack