McPhillips v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

New York Court of Common Pleas

McPhillips v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

14 N.Y.S. 928, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 50, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2573

New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided June 1, 1891·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The learned counsel for the respondent is quite mistaken in the supposition that the court misconceived the evidence in the record, and confounded the evidence on a former trial with the evidence on the trial under review. Having laid the foundation, imperative in the case of a witness not a party, but here unnecessary, the defendant introduced the testimony of the' plaintiff, Patrick J. McPhillips, on a former trial, as follows: “Question. „What is the distance * * * as to where the train was when he [the intestate] fell? Answer. Between the third pole, 277, feet from where he fell. Q. Did you make the measurements? A. I made the measurement myself.” This, being the statement of the plaintiff in the. action, was not only operative in contradiction of his present testimony, but, as.the admission of a party, was competent evidence upon the issues in litigation. Besides, there was much other evidence of the same tendencv-and effect. Motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The learned counsel for the respondent is quite mistaken in the supposition that the court misconceived the evidence in the record, and confounded the evidence on a former trial with the evidence on the trial under review. Having laid the foundation, imperative in the case of a witness not a party, but here unnecessary, the defendant introduced the testimony of the' plaintiff, Patrick J. McPhillips, on a former trial, as follows: “Question. „What is the distance * * * as to where the train was when he [the intestate] fell? Answer. Between the third pole, 277, feet from where he fell. Q. Did you make the measurements? A. I made the measurement myself.” This, being the statement of the plaintiff in the. action, was not only operative in contradiction of his present testimony, but, as.the admission of a party, was competent evidence upon the issues in litigation. Besides, there was much other evidence of the same tendencv-and effect. Motion denied.

McPhillips v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 14 N.Y.S. 928, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 50, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2573 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

14 N.Y.S. 928 (McPhillips v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related