Wolkoff v. Tefft

Superior Court of New York

Wolkoff v. Tefft

12 N.Y.S. 464, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1797

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJanuary 5, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 464 (Wolkoff v. Tefft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolkoff v. Tefft, 12 N.Y.S. 464, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1797 (superctny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf as to important matters. On his cross-examination he testified that he had been arrested about some coats; that a party he was with stole the coats, and that he (the-plaintiff) was arrested and convicted, and served his term in the house of refuge. On redirect examination, he was asked, were you guilty or innocent, of that transaction ? The counsel for defendant did not object to the form of the question, but objected to it as immaterial and irrelevant. The witness-had a right to show his innocence, and, if possible, to relieve himself from the unfavorable inference that might be drawn from the facts of his conviction. No record of that had been produced, but, if it had been, it would not have been conclusive of plaintiff’s guilt. Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 467. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event..

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf as to important matters. On his cross-examination he testified that he had been arrested about some coats; that a party he was with stole the coats, and that he (the-plaintiff) was arrested and convicted, and served his term in the house of refuge. On redirect examination, he was asked, were you guilty or innocent, of that transaction ? The counsel for defendant did not object to the form of the question, but objected to it as immaterial and irrelevant. The witness-had a right to show his innocence, and, if possible, to relieve himself from the unfavorable inference that might be drawn from the facts of his conviction. No record of that had been produced, but, if it had been, it would not have been conclusive of plaintiff’s guilt. Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 467. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 464, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolkoff-v-tefft-superctny-1891.