Williams v. Joline

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Joline

126 N.Y.S. 417, 2 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R., (N.S.) 188

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 N.Y.S. 417 (Williams v. Joline) 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

Williams v. Joline, 126 N.Y.S. 417, 2 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R., (N.S.) 188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

GAVEGAN, J.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s automobile, caused by a collision with one of defendants’ north-bound electric cars at the corner of Lexington avenue and Eighty-Fourth street, New York City. After a trial, the court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment for the plaintiff on conflicting evidence.

The principal point on which the witnesses differed was as to whether the plaintiff’s chauffeur or defendants’ motorman stopped their respective cars before starting west across Lexington avenue or north across Eighty-Fourth street respectively.

During the trial an investigator in the employ of plaintiff’s attorneys testified that two witnesses had given their names and addresses to plaintiff’s chauffeur, but that he was unable to subpoena either of them, for the reason that they had moved from the addresses given and could not be located. Following this clue, the defendants’ investigators set about to find, and did find, the two witnesses referred to, and presented their affidavits on this application. So far as appears from the moving papers, the defendants could have discovered the names of these witnesses as easily as did the plaintiff’s chauffeur. When defendants’ attorney who tried the case learned that there were additional witnesses to the accident, he could have asked an adjournment of the trial and made some efforts to find them.

Furthermore, the testimony of the new witnesses is cumulative, and it is not shown that it would change the result at another trial. Defendants’ attorney in his moving affidavit says:

“The defendants’ witnesses testified that neither the car nor automobile stopped at Eighty-Fourth street and Lexington avenue before the collision, and that the automobile ran into the side of the car. * * * They wfil testify that neither the car nor automobile stopped at Eighty-Fourth street and Lexington avenue previous to the accident, and that the automobile ran into the side of the car.”

On his own statement the defendants’ attorney shows conclusively that the newly discovered evidence was cumulative, and, therefore, not sufficient to warrant the granting of a new trial. Glassford v. Lewis, 82 Hun, 46, 31 N. Y. Supp. 162.

Order reversed, with costs, motion denied, and judgment reinstated, with costs. All concur.

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

GAVEGAN, J.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s automobile, caused by a collision with one of defendants’ north-bound electric cars at the corner of Lexington avenue and Eighty-Fourth street, New York City. After a trial, the court, sitting without a jury, gave judgment for the plaintiff on conflicting evidence.

The principal point on which the witnesses differed was as to whether the plaintiff’s chauffeur or defendants’ motorman stopped their respective cars before starting west across Lexington avenue or north across Eighty-Fourth street respectively.

During the trial an investigator in the employ of plaintiff’s attorneys testified that two witnesses had given their names and addresses to plaintiff’s chauffeur, but that he was unable to subpoena either of them, for the reason that they had moved from the addresses given and could not be located. Following this clue, the defendants’ investigators set about to find, and did find, the two witnesses referred to, and presented their affidavits on this application. So far as appears from the moving papers, the defendants could have discovered the names of these witnesses as easily as did the plaintiff’s chauffeur. When defendants’ attorney who tried the case learned that there were additional witnesses to the accident, he could have asked an adjournment of the trial and made some efforts to find them.

Furthermore, the testimony of the new witnesses is cumulative, and it is not shown that it would change the result at another trial. Defendants’ attorney in his moving affidavit says:

“The defendants’ witnesses testified that neither the car nor automobile stopped at Eighty-Fourth street and Lexington avenue before the collision, and that the automobile ran into the side of the car. * * * They wfil testify that neither the car nor automobile stopped at Eighty-Fourth street and Lexington avenue previous to the accident, and that the automobile ran into the side of the car.”

On his own statement the defendants’ attorney shows conclusively that the newly discovered evidence was cumulative, and, therefore, not sufficient to warrant the granting of a new trial. Glassford v. Lewis, 82 Hun, 46, 31 N. Y. Supp. 162.

Order reversed, with costs, motion denied, and judgment reinstated, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.Y.S. 417, 2 N.Y. Civ. Proc. R., (N.S.) 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-joline-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack