Page images
PDF
EPUB

Digest.

drew the money upon the warrant as the attorney of Davidson:

Held, that these facts warranted a conviction of the defendant of obtaining money under false pretenses. (People agt. Genet, 19 Hun, 91.)

16. On cross-examination, leading questions tending to elicit new matter are not allowed as a matter of right. (Id.)

17. As to the proper limits of a crossexamination of the accused offering himself as a witness in his own behalf. (Id.)

18. Probate of the second codicil of the testator's will, by which the respondent was appointed one of his executors, was opposed by his three daughters and one other legatee, on the ground that he was incompetent to execute a will at the time of its date, and also on the ground of undue influence exerted by the respondent. Upon the hearing, the contestants called the physician who had attended the deceased for eight years previous to his decease, for the purpose of showing that he was incompetent to make a will at the time of executing the codicil. The physician having stated that all his knowledge was derived from what he observed while he was attending the deceased professionally, his evidence was excluded by the surrogate:

Held, that the evidence was not prohibited by section 834 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as being information acquired while attending the deceased professionally, and which was necessary to enable him to do so. (Staunton agt. Parker, 19 Hun, 55.)

19. That even if the prohibition therein contained were applicable, the contestants, as the personal representatives of the deceased, might waive it. (Id.)

20. This action was brought upon a

promissory note, made by the defendants to one Ely, the plaintiff's testator. The note read: "One day after date I promise to pay," and was signed by both defendants. Upon the trial, the defendant, J. B. Clute, to establish the defense of usury, called his codefendant, and offered to prove by him the usurious agreement made with the deceased, the offer expressly stating that the evidence was to be used solely for the benefit of the defendant, J. B. Clute, and not in behalf of the witness. Under the plaintiff's objection, the evidence was excluded as inadmissible under section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

Held, that the note was, in law, a joint and several one, and that separate judgments might be rendered against the two makers.

That as the testimony of the witness was to be used solely in behalf of his co-defendant, and not in his own behalf or interest, it was not excluded by section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but should have been received. (Ely agt. Clute, 19 Hun, 35.)

21. While a prisoner indicted for

murder was at the station-house, and after the watch of the deceased had been found upon him, he was asked by an officer where the rest of the jewelry was, and replied that he knew nothing about it. Subsequently, the question being repeated, he asked, Will you do me a favor." The officer said "I will if I can; I sympathize with you, or I pity you; you are in a bad fix." The prisoner then asked him to send his clothes to his mother and not let her know what had happened. The prisoner then, in answer to a question by another person, made a detailed statement of what he had done:

Held, that his confession was properly admitted on the trial. (Cox agt. People, 19 Hun, 430.) 22. A prisoner indicted for murder, after the killing, fled from the city

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

Held, that conceding that he was illegally held in custody at the time he made the confession, that

fact did not invalidate it or render it inadmissible. (Balbo agt. People, 19 Hun, 424.)

23. Upon the trial of an indictment for conveying property with intent to defraud the grantor's creditors, the district attorney was allowed to prove that the prisoner had been examined in supplementary proceedings, and that his signature to the examination, which was produced in court, was genuine. The district attorney then read from the examination, and asked the prisoner whether the statements so read, or those which he had made upon the trial, were true. The questions were allowed against the objection and exception of the prisoner's counsel:

Held, that the evidence was inadmissible under Code, section 292. (Loomis agt. People, 19 Hun, 601.)

24. The plaintiff presented to the defendants, as executors, a claim for services rendered to their tes tator, the plaintiff's father. Upon the trial on a reference, under the statute, a sister of the plaintiff, who was also a legatee under the will, and her husband, were allowed, against the defendants' objection and exception, to testify as to the employment of the plaintiff by the testator, and as to his promise to pay her wages for her services:

Held, that the evidence was properly received. (Pursell agt. Fay, 19 Hun, 595.)

25. Upon the trial of an action against a railroad company for an injury caused to one of its employes, by the alleged failure of defendant to provide a sufficient number of employes to do the work; evidence showing the employment of additional servants thereby, after the accident, was held to be admissible. (Harvey agt. N. Y. C. and H. R. R. R. Co., 19 Hun, 556.)

26 Where upon the trial the plaintiff offered to prove that the switchman employed at the time of the accident had complained to his superiors that the services required of him were too much work for one man to do, and that he had not the requisite experience to perform them, held, error for the court to refuse to admit the evidence. (Id.)

27. Although, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, a married woman cannot recover on the ground of her inability to render services which are due or belong to her husband, yet she may recover for the loss of such as are personal to herself. (Minick agt. City of Troy, 19 Hun, 253.)

28. In determining the personal loss to herself, evidence as to who composed her family, and as to what she did before the injury, and how she was affected by it, and as to the pain and suffering endured, is competent. (Id.)

29. Section 248 of 2 Revised Statutes,

270, providing that the proceedings in any cause, had before a justice of the peace, may be proved by his oath, does not authorize a judg

ment recovered before him to be established by his parol testimony as to the proceedings had before him, without the production of his docket; in such case the judgment can only be proved by the production and verification of the docket

Digest.

itself. (Dorr agt. City of Troy, 35. The fact that an alderman of a

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

32. Plaintiff in error was indicted and tried for stealing rope from a vessel named in the indictment. Upon the trial a witness was allowed to testify that another rope, found with that charged in the indictment to have been stolen, had been stolen from another vessel; no evidence was given as to the time this rope was stolen, or which tended to show it had ever been in the prisoner's possession:

Held, that the evidence was improperly admitted. (Boland agt. People. 19 Hun, 80.)

[blocks in formation]

city saw an excavation being made, which being left unguarded caused an injury to a party falling into it, is not evidence per se that the city was guilty of negligence. (McDermott agt. City of Kingston, 19 Hun, 198.)

36. The seal of a corporation affixed to an instrument proves itself, and is presumptive evidence that it was affixed by due authority. (Canandarqua Academy agt. McKechnie, 19 Hun, 62.)

37. A certificate of proof or acknowledgment in due form proves itself, and no proof of its genuineness is required. (Id.)

38. This action was upon a promissory note; the defense was that the alleged signature of defendant's intestate, as maker, was a forgery. Upon the trial, a cashier of a bank, as a witness for plaintiff to prove the handwriting, was asked if the deceased, in his lifetime, had presented instruments with his signature at the bank for the purpose of having them discounted; this was objected to, the objection being to that portion of the question calling for the purpose; the objection was overruled, and exception taken. The witness answered that the deceased did present instruments containing his signature to the bank:

Held, that as the witness simply answered that portion of the question conceded to be proper, the exception was not available. (Bardin agt. Stevenson, 75 N. Y., 164.)

39. A witness, who had testified that he had seen deceased subscribe his name to various papers passing between them, was permitted to testify as to what kind of instruments these papers were:

Held, no error; that while it would not be competent to go into detail as to the contents of the papers, it was competent upon the point of witness' knowledge of the

Digest.

handwriting to show the nature of the signatures he had seen - i. e., that they were of an important character, which might call more particular attention of the witness to them. (Id.)

40. T. a witness for plaintiff, testified as to a conversation with deceased and the date of a transaction with him. A. a witness called by defendant, gave testimony showing the testimony of T. to be untrue. T. was subsequently recalled, and was asked and permitted to answer under objection and exception as to what he had ascertained from examination of the books of the bank; his answer corroborated the testimony of A., showing he was mistaken in his original testimony:

Held, that the question was improper; but the answer could not have damaged defendant, and the exception, therefore, was not good. (Id.)

41. The note in suit was for $1,000, payable with interest at six per cent. Plaintiff was permitted to prove, under objection and exception, statements of the deceased, made soon after the date of the note, to the effect that he had borrowed $1,000 of plaintiff and given his note for it at six per cent:

Held, no error. (Id.)

42. Where the genuineness of a signature is in question in an action, experts in handwriting who have no other knowledge of the handwriting of the person whose signature the one in question purports to be, than that derived by a comparison in court of such signature with other signatures of the person to instruments proved and properly in evidence, are competent as witnesses to give their opinion, derived from such comparison, as to the genuineness of the disputed signature, and as to whether it appears a natural or simulated hand. (Miles agt. Loomis, 75 N. Y., 287.)

[blocks in formation]

46. Where in an action upon a promissory note indorsed by defendant for the accommodation of S. & H., defendant offered to prove that a sum of money paid by S. to plaintiff without direction as to application, and which was applied by plaintiff upon another note made by S. & H., held by him, was raised by the makers upon a note indorsed by defendant for the purpose of having the proceeds applied upon the note in suit:

Held, that in the absence of proof, or of an offer to prove, that knowledge of this fact was communicated to plaintiff, the evidence was properly excluded. (Harding agt. Tifft, 75 N. Y., 461.)

47. As to whether a record of con

viction of a witness for a felony, where it does not disqualify, is evidence in a civil action for the purpose of impeachment, quære. (Sims agt. Sims, 75 N. Y., 466.)

48. If competent, the record is not conclusive as to the fact of the

Digest.

commission of the crime charged, but may be rebutted. (Id.)

49. Defendant having testified as a witness in his own behalf, a record of his conviction in the State of Ohio for a felony was offered by plaintiff and received in evidence. Defendant was thereupon asked by his counsel whether he was guilty of the offense of which he had been convicted. This was objected to and excluded: Held, error. (Id.)

50. An instrument executed by plaintiff in this form, "Received of D. M. Peyser five hundred dollars due on demand," was set up as a counter-claim; held, that it was open to explanation as to its consideration, and the circumstances under which it was given; and that, evidence having been received without objection, tending to show that it was given upon payment by Peyser to plaintiff of the sum specified, which was then due from the former to the latter, and was intended simply as a receipt, a submission of the question to the jury, and a finding to that effect were justified. (De Lavallette agt. Wendt, 75 N. Y., 579.)

51. Upon the trial of an indictment for obtaining goods under false representations as to solvency, held, that schedules of his assets and liabilities, made by the prisoner in proceedings in bankruptcy, were competent as evidence to show the falsity of the representations. (Abbott agt. People, 75 N. Y., 602.)

52. In equitable action by principal against agent, to compel return of negotiable obligations, executed by the former in the hands of the latter, or to recover their value, the value is prima facie the amount unpaid upon the instruments; this may be met by proof of inability to pay, but not by proof of market value. (See West. R. R. Co. agt. Bayne, 75 N. Y., 1.)

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

55. In an action upon an alleged judgment of the supreme judicial court of the state of Maine, the copy of the judgment record, offered in evidence by plaintiff, purported to be attested by the clerk under the seal of the court; following the copy thus attested, and attached thereto, was a copy of an execution, attested in like manner, the attestation being of a subsequent date to that of the record; immediately following the last attestation, and attached thereto, was a certificate of the chief justice of the court, to the effect, that the one who signed as clerk is the clerk of the court; "that the foregoing signature, purporting to be his is genuine, and that the seal thereto, by him affixed, is the seal of said supreme judicial court, and that the foregoing attestation is in due form of law." The copy of the record was objected to as not properly exem

« PreviousContinue »