Slater v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Slater v. New York City Railway Co.

94 N.Y.S. 395

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 395 (Slater v. New York City Railway Co.) 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

Slater v. New York City Railway Co., 94 N.Y.S. 395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A witness (Becherer) called by plaintiff in rebuttal was permitted to testify, referring to one Donohue, an employé of defendant, that “he related in detail the direct examination of the plaintiff, and went over the testimony with them, and said, ‘Now, don’t forget, and get mixed up.’” This evidence was ad[396]*396mitted, as the court stated, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the other witnesses, over defendant’s objection to it as-incompetent. After its admission a motion was made by'defendant to strike it out as incompetent, and denied. The defendant properly excepted to the rulings. These exceptions present reversible error. The evidence was incompetent, as containing statements of conclusions. Its admission may have prejudiced the defendant. It is unnecessary to consider the other questions presented by the record, further than to call attention to the apparent lack of convincing evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with; cos'ts to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

A witness (Becherer) called by plaintiff in rebuttal was permitted to testify, referring to one Donohue, an employé of defendant, that “he related in detail the direct examination of the plaintiff, and went over the testimony with them, and said, ‘Now, don’t forget, and get mixed up.’” This evidence was ad[396]*396mitted, as the court stated, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the other witnesses, over defendant’s objection to it as-incompetent. After its admission a motion was made by'defendant to strike it out as incompetent, and denied. The defendant properly excepted to the rulings. These exceptions present reversible error. The evidence was incompetent, as containing statements of conclusions. Its admission may have prejudiced the defendant. It is unnecessary to consider the other questions presented by the record, further than to call attention to the apparent lack of convincing evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with; cos'ts to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slater-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.