Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

172 A.D. 967, 157 N.Y.S. 1142

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 15, 1916·Published

Opinion

Order reversed, with costs, motion for new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the court erred in its charge upon the subject of adverse inference permissible to be drawn from the unexplained absence of a witness to a material fact. (Wade v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 App. Div. 389, 390; Reehil v. Fraas, 129 id. 563, 566.) Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., dissented upon the ground that the instructions in question as made at folios 652, 653 a.nd 672 did not constitute capital error.

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

Order reversed, with costs, motion for new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the court erred in its charge upon the subject of adverse inference permissible to be drawn from the unexplained absence of a witness to a material fact. (Wade v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 App. Div. 389, 390; Reehil v. Fraas, 129 id. 563, 566.) Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., dissented upon the ground that the instructions in question as made at folios 652, 653 a.nd 672 did not constitute capital error.

Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 172 A.D. 967, 157 N.Y.S. 1142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

172 A.D. 967 (Prendergast v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related