People v. Kingsley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kingsley

173 A.D. 985, 158 N.Y.S. 1125

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D. 985 (People v. Kingsley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Kingsley, 173 A.D. 985, 158 N.Y.S. 1125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Kellogg, P. J. (dissenting):

It was reversible error to receive, over the defendant’s objection, the evidence of Mrs. May that her sister, the complainant, after she discovered her pregnancy, two months after the alleged offense, stated to her that the defendant was responsible for her condition. (Baccio v. People, 41 N. Y. 265; People v. Clemons, 37 Hun, 580; People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481; People v. Friedman, 139 App. Div. 795.) Howard, J., concurred.

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

Kellogg, P. J. (dissenting):

It was reversible error to receive, over the defendant’s objection, the evidence of Mrs. May that her sister, the complainant, after she discovered her pregnancy, two months after the alleged offense, stated to her that the defendant was responsible for her condition. (Baccio v. People, 41 N. Y. 265; People v. Clemons, 37 Hun, 580; People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481; People v. Friedman, 139 App. Div. 795.) Howard, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D. 985, 158 N.Y.S. 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kingsley-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack