Page images
PDF
EPUB

}

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THE ADJUDICATIONS OF ALL THE COURTS OF THE STATE,

PRESENTED IN THE REPORTS BY

ABBOTT, ANTHON, BARBOUR, BOSWORTH, BRADFORD, CAINES, CLARKE, COLEMAN,
COMSTOCK, COWEN, DENIO, DUER, EDWARDS, HALL, HILL, HILTON, HOFFMAN,
HOPKINS, HOWARD, JOHNSON, KERNAN, PAIGE, PARKER, SANDFORD,

SELDEN, E. D. SMITH, E. P. SMITH, AND WENDELL;

AND

LS THE CHANCERY SENTINEL, THE CITY HALL RECORDER, THE CODE REPORTS AND REPORTER, HILL & DENTO's
SUPPLEMENT, HOWARD'S COURT OF APPEALS Cases, LIVINGSTON'S JUDICIAL OPINIONS,

THE NEW YORK LEGAL OBSERVER, WHEELER'S CRIMINAL CASES, ETO.

TOGETHER WITH

THE STATUTES,

As embodied in the Revised Laws of 1813, the Revised Statutes, and the general Acts passed since 1829.

PRECEDED BY

A TABLE OF CASES CRITICISED.

THIRD EDITION: REVISED AND CORRECTED.

VOL. III.

NEW YORK:

JOHN S. VOORHIES, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER.

1864.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty,

By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and Austin ABBOTT.
La the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixiy-three,

By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and Austin ABBOTT,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four,

By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York,

APR 14 104

( Pleallign Crohnny

BENNIE, SHIRA & LINDSAY, BTEREOTYPERS AND ELECTROTYPERS 81, &and 85 Centre-street,

NEW YORK

BAKER & GODWIN, PRINTERS, Trsbane Building, cor. Spruce & Naasaa stronte

NEW YORL

DIGEST

OF

NEW YORK STATUTES AND REPORTS.

FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1860.

[Statates aro distinguished by the use of a smaller type.

EXAMINATION (of Assigpor, and of prisoner had not exhausted all his peremptory Parties)

challenges when the panel was completed, the

prisoner cannot afterwards avail himself of WITNESS.

exceptions taken to the admission of such im-
proper evidence before the triers. (4 Den.,
31; 1 Id., 300.) Supreme Ct., 1851, People v.

Knickerbocker, 1 Park. Cr., 302.
EXCEPTIONS (and Bill of).

4. Triers. It seems, that a bill of excep

tions will lie for refusing triers on challenge I. WHAT MAY BE REVIEWED BY EXCEPTIONS. of jurors. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend., 509– II. How EXCEPTIONS ARE TO BE TAKEN. 545. Compare Erp. Vermilyea, 6 Cov., 555. III. OF THE BILL, AND ITS SETTLEMENT.

5. The rejection of evidence, which, IV. TURNING CASE INTO BILL.

whether in its nature competent or not, is V. HOW DETERMINED.

wholly irrelevant to the issues made by the

pleadings, --is not a ground of exception. N. I. WHAT MAY BE REVIEWED BY Ex- Y. Superior Ct., 1857, Purchase o. Mattison, CEPTIONS.

6 Duer, 587.

6. The judge's comments on the evi1 Challenge. If the court overrule a chal- dence are not the subject of exceptions. If lenge to the favor, when properly made, or he inadvertently misstates the facts, the counrefuse to appoint triers to pass upon it, the sel must correct him at the time; and his error may be corrected on a bill of exceptions. opinion upon the evidence cannot be reviewed And so, where the court refuses to allow com- upon exception. Supreme Ct., 1848, Nolton petent evidence to be given to the triers, or v. Moses, 3 Barb., 31. misdirects them in matters of law. [2 Rev. 7. Variance. A bill of exceptions will not Stat., 736, & 21; 21 Wend., 545; Bac. Abr., lie to review the exercise of the discretion of Juries, E. 12; 2 Tidd, 862; 4 Chit. Gen. Pr., of a judge, in disregarding a variance at the 3; 7 Cr., 297; 1 Rob., Va., 135; Steph. N.P., trial. [4 Hill, 187; 15 Wend., 669.) Ct. of 1794.] Supreme Ct., 1845, People 7. Bodine, 1 Appeals, 1848, Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co. of Den., 281. See People o. Honeyman, 3 Id., 121. Albany, 1 N. Y.(1 Comst.), 290.

2. And such exceptions are not waived by 8. A refusal to nonsuit is not a good the prisoner's not challenging the juror per- ground of exception, when there is any eviemptorily. People o. Bodine, 1 Den., 281. dence to subrnit to the jury. Supreme Ct.,

3. Where, on the trial of a challenge to the 1848, Chesterman o. McCostlin, 6 N. Y. Leg. favor, improper evidence is received, and the Obs., 212. triers find the juror indifferent, and he is then 9. Refusal to amend. The omission of an challenged peremptorily, and it appears the entire allegation offered to be proved, is not a

« PreviousContinue »