Hirsch v. Vegiard
| Decision Date | 21 November 1950 |
| Citation | 77 A.2d 85,137 Conn. 302 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HIRSCH v. VEGIARD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Ufa E. Guthrie, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
Henry C. Stone, Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Judge.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the amount claimed to be due under an oral agreement for the installation of plumbing fixtures. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.
The court found these facts: The defendant owned a parcel of land upon which he was erecting a house. The plaintiff had a written contract with him to install the plumbing. While performing the work, the plaintiff, at the defendant's request, quoted a price of $200 for an additional toilet on the first floor. The defendant orally accepted the offer. The plaintiff installed the toilet. When the job was finished, the defendant refused to pay for it and told the plaintiff to remove the fixture. This has not been done.
The merit of the defendant's assignment of error directed at the finding cannot be determined. The record does not contain the transcript of evidence. Aetna Ins. Co. v. Blumenthal, 129 Conn. 545, 550, 29 A.2d 751.
The defendant filed an application to rectify the appeal. Practice Book, § 365. This procedure was proper under the circumstances of this case. Owing to the absence of a stenographer at the trial and to the refusal of the court to act, the finding does not present the question which the defendant seeks to have reviewed, and to attain that end it is necessary to go outside the record. Marks v. Dorkin, 104 Conn. 660, 663, 133 A. 915. The appeal is rectified to establish that the defendant testified that a Dan Francisco was not to share in the profits which might result from a sale of the property in question, while Francisco's testimony was exactly to the contrary.
The material issue was whether the defendant requested the plaintiff to install the toilet. The question which the rectified appeal presents is whether the court erred in concluding that the defendant was unworthy of belief on this issue because it determined, as the memorandum of decision discloses, that his testimony was false on the collateral issue concerning Francisco's interest in the property.
It is not clear from the record whether the defendant's statement as to Francisco's lack of interest in possible profits occurred on direct or cross examination. We shall, however, assume that it happened, as argued, during the course of the latter. Cross-examination is to discover the truth. Bishop v. Copp, 96 Conn. 571, 575, 114 A. 682. It provides a means, among other ends, for discrediting the testimony of a witness. Dore v. Babcock, 74 Conn. 425, 429, 50 A. 1016. When pursued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ouellette
...for that purpose, the examination frequently and legitimately enters into matters collateral to the main issues." Hirsch v. Vegiard, 137 Conn. 302, 304, 77 A.2d 85 (1950). Matters which might not be strictly relevant on direct examination may be so on cross-examination where that matter is ......
-
State v. Januszewski
...v. Carbone, 172 Conn. 242, 262, 374 A.2d 215, cert. denied, 431 U.S. 967, 97 S.Ct. 2925, 53 L.Ed.2d 1063 (1977); Hirsch v. Vegiard, 137 Conn. 302, 304, 77 A.2d 85 (1950).26 Kenyon was deceased at the time of ...
-
State v. Briggs
...on the cross-examination of Christine Briggs were clearly aimed at testing her memory, recollection and credibility. Hirsch v. Vegiard, 137 Conn. 302, 304, 77 A.2d 85. Where a defendant proposes an alibi as his defense, one permissible method of determining whether the alibi was fabricated ......
-
State v. Carbone
...testimony of Scofield and Edwards. Impeaching a witness on a collateral matter by extrinsic evidence is not allowed. Hirsch v. Vegiard, 137 Conn. 302, 304, 77 A.2d 85; Johnson v. Palomba Co., 114 Conn. 108, 115, 157 A. Peter also claims the court erred in sustaining objections to cross-exam......