Carr v. Motor Bus Lines, 5.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 5.,5. |
| Citation | 197 A. 290,119 N.J.L. 433 |
| Parties | CARR et al. v. MOTOR BUS LINES et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Hudson County.
Action for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant by Mary Carr, amended to be Catherine Carr, Osman Carr, her husband, and May Carr, by her next friend, Osman Carr, and Catherine Carr and Osman Carr, individually, against Motor Bus Lines, a corporation of New Jersey, and others. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and named defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Charles A. Rooney, of Jersey City, for appellant. John J. Cuneo, of Jersey City (Andrew O. Wittreich, of Jersey City, of counsel), for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant Motor Bus Lines.
The grounds of appeal are 25 in number confined to exceptions taken to the admission and rejection of evidence. The appellant divides these into 3 classes contending in each instance that the trial court committed reversible error: (1) In admitting and rejecting answers to questions addressed to the plaintiff; (2) rulings respecting questions addressed to the medical aspects of the case; and (3) that the court's rulings respecting questions addressed to other witnesses were erroneous and prejudicial.
All of these exceptions have been examined and we cannot say that singly or collectively the substantial rights of the parties were affected.
In every instance the trial judge made a serious and determined attempt to keep both the direct and cross examinations within reasonable bounds, particularly as to that affecting the credibility of the witnesses. Necessarily this must rest in the sound discretion of the trial judge and there is nothing indicating a transgression in this direction.
The judgment under review is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices PARKER, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, and PERSKIE, and Judges HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, and WALKER —15.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. North Bergen Tp.
... ... at 347, 157 A.2d at 311, to be based upon "somewhat obscure and rather unfortunate lines." Nevertheless, the distinction was real enough in 1918 when the earliest predecessor of the ... ...
- Bole v. Civil City of Ligonier
- Ocean County Nat. Bank v. Stillwell, 221.
-
Bd. Of Educ. Of City Of Garfield v. State Bd. Of Educ.
... ... Reading between the lines, the parties were not in accord as to the method of computing the length of service rendered by ... ...