State v. Ratledge
This text of 58 A. 944 (State v. Ratledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
—We think the question is not admissible and ¡sustain the objection.
[93]*93The witness was then asked if he had not also filed charges with the Attorney-General seeking to remove Mr. Eatledge from his office as State Detective.
Objected to by the Attorney-General as immaterial.
Lore, C. J.:—We think the question is inadmissible.
Q,.—Did you not also have those charges published widely in the newspapers for the purpose of influencing the jury against Mr. Eatledge when the case should come up for trial ?
Lore, C. J.:—We think it is not admissible.
Q,.—Did you not between the 8th and 12th of August in the City of Wilmington near Eleventh and West Streets, say to Pierce Gould in response to a question of his as to why you brought this action, that you brought it before Judge Cochran because he was a Democrat and you got Irving Handy to represent you because he was a Democrat and you thought the two of them and you would be able to fix Jim, or words to that effect ?
Lore, C. J.:—We think the question is not admissible. It does not bear upon the fact of whether any assault was committed that day at all and is therefore irrelevant.
(The Court gave the usual-charge in assault and battery cases.)
Verdict, not guilty.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 A. 944, 21 Del. 91, 5 Penne. 91, 1904 Del. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ratledge-nygensess-1904.