Eastman v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1909 |
| Citation | 200 Mass. 412,86 N.E. 793 |
| Parties | EASTMAN v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Chas. A. McDonough, for plaintiff.
Forrest F. Collier, for defendant.
The injury for which the plaintiff sought to recover was to her arm. In the course of her cross-examination by the defendant it appeared that the plaintiff was married 9 years; that her husband was dead and that she had been a widow 11 years. It also appeared that menstruation came on immediately after the accident, about a week 'ahead of time.' Thereupon she was asked this question: The question was excluded and the defendant excepted. It is enough to say that its exclusion was plainly within the discretion of the presiding justice as to the extent to which the cross-examination should be permitted to go. It was possible of course that there might be a connection between the injured arm and premature menstruation and miscarriages which occurred from 11 to 20 years before the accident. But, if there was, it was too attenuated and remote for consideration.
The defendant was allowed to ask a witness called by it if he knew what the reputation of the plaintiff for truth and veracity was, and upon his answering that he did to ask him what it was, and the witness replied that it was bad. Thereupon the defendant asked the witness, 'Would you believe her under oath?' On the plaintiff's objection the question was excluded and the defendant excepted.
Whatever may be the rule in England and in some other jurisdictions in this country, we regard it as settled in this commonwealth that, in the introduction of evidence affecting generally the credibility of a witness, the inquiry is limited to his reputation for truth and veracity. Wetherbee v. Norris, 103 Mass. 565; Com. v. Lawler, 12 Allen, 585; Quinsigamond Bank v. Hobbs, 11 Gray, 250, 257; Com. v. Moore, 3 Pick. 194, 196. This rule, it is said in 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 1075, 'is well supported by authority as well as reason,' and a large number of cases is cited. See, also, Teese v. Huntington, 23 How. 2, 16 L.Ed. 479, and 1 Greenleaf on Ev. § 461.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Dockham
...of the witness being impeached. Commonwealth v. Binkiewicz, 342 Mass. 740, 755-756, 175 N.E.2d 473 (1961). Eastman v. Boston Elev. Ry., 200 Mass. 412, 413, 86 N.E. 793 (1909). Contrast Proposed Mass.R.Evid. 405(a) (allowing, in some circumstances, opinion testimony or evidence of specific i......
-
Olson v. Ela
...properly excluded, as no witness can give an opinion as to the honesty of another witness' testimony. See Eastman v. Boston Elev. Ry., 200 Mass. 412, 413-414, 86 N.E. 793 (1909), and authorities Dr. Epstein went on to testify on cross examination that he had been employed by the defendant t......
-
Commonwealth v. Beal
...veracity.’ Evidence of a witness's reputation for truth and veracity bears upon his credibility as a witness. Eastman v. Boston Elevated R. Co., 200 Mass. 412, 413, 86 N.E. 793. See Commonwealth v. Maddocks, 207 Mass. 152, 157, 158, 93 N.E 253. Ordinarily, the defendant in a criminal case m......
-
Com. v. Kelleher
...for truth and veracity.' " Commonwealth v. Cancel, 394 Mass. 567, 572, 476 N.E.2d 610 (1985), quoting from Eastman v. Boston Elevated Ry., 200 Mass. 412, 413, 86 N.E. 793 (1909). The prosecutor made only a brief reference to Kelleher's job application during cross-examination and did not me......