Snodgrass v. Bradley

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Snodgrass v. Bradley

2 Grant 43, 1852 Pa. LEXIS 249

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 30, 1852

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 Grant 43 (Snodgrass v. Bradley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Snodgrass v. Bradley, 2 Grant 43, 1852 Pa. LEXIS 249 (Pa. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court, delivered September 30, 1852, by

Lewis, J.

— The able and learned judge, who presided at the trial, was betrayed into an error, in regard to the defendant's liability for injuries, designedly, or intentionally, inflicted by his servant. For such injuries the master is not liable. For this error the judgment must be reversed.

“ There was no error in the instruction, that the minority of the plaintiff’s son may be reasonably inferred.” The action was brought for an injury to the plaintiffs minor son. The witnesses who testified to the injury, spoke of him as “ a boy,” and the son himself was examined as a witness j so, that he stood face to face with the jury, subject to their inspection. In the case of a very young boy, whose minority was manifest upon inspection, it might not occur to any one, to ask him his age. • In a writ, to reverse a fine for non-age of the cognizor, or to set aside a statute, or recognizance entered into by an infant, and in other cases of the like sort, it was the ancient practice, to issue a writ to the sheriff, commanding him to constrain the party to appear, that it may be ascertained by a view of his body, whether he be of full age, or not. If, however, the court has, upon inspection, any doubt of the age of the party, it may proceed to take proof of the fact, and particularly may examine the infant himself, upon an oath of voire dire vintatione dieere; that is, to make true answers to such questions as the court shall demand of him; or the court may examine his mother, his godfather, or the like. 3 Bl. 332; 2 Roll. Abr. 573. There is no error in permitting the jury, in a proper case, to infer the infancy of a witness who has given his testimony in their presence, nor would it be error to interrogate the infant himself, touching the fact.

None of the errors assigned are sustained, except the one indicated in the first part of this opinion.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.

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

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court, delivered September 30, 1852, by

Lewis, J.

— The able and learned judge, who presided at the trial, was betrayed into an error, in regard to the defendant's liability for injuries, designedly, or intentionally, inflicted by his servant. For such injuries the master is not liable. For this error the judgment must be reversed.

“ There was no error in the instruction, that the minority of the plaintiff’s son may be reasonably inferred.” The action was brought for an injury to the plaintiffs minor son. The witnesses who testified to the injury, spoke of him as “ a boy,” and the son himself was examined as a witness j so, that he stood face to face with the jury, subject to their inspection. In the case of a very young boy, whose minority was manifest upon inspection, it might not occur to any one, to ask him his age. • In a writ, to reverse a fine for non-age of the cognizor, or to set aside a statute, or recognizance entered into by an infant, and in other cases of the like sort, it was the ancient practice, to issue a writ to the sheriff, commanding him to constrain the party to appear, that it may be ascertained by a view of his body, whether he be of full age, or not. If, however, the court has, upon inspection, any doubt of the age of the party, it may proceed to take proof of the fact, and particularly may examine the infant himself, upon an oath of voire dire vintatione dieere; that is, to make true answers to such questions as the court shall demand of him; or the court may examine his mother, his godfather, or the like. 3 Bl. 332; 2 Roll. Abr. 573. There is no error in permitting the jury, in a proper case, to infer the infancy of a witness who has given his testimony in their presence, nor would it be error to interrogate the infant himself, touching the fact.

None of the errors assigned are sustained, except the one indicated in the first part of this opinion.

Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Grant 43, 1852 Pa. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snodgrass-v-bradley-pa-1852.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack