Langley v. Wadsworth
| Decision Date | 14 April 1885 |
| Parties | LANGLEY v. WADSWORTH, EX'r, etc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mr. Mort, for appellant.
Mr. Allen, for respondent.
The complaint stated a good cause of action in favor of a payee and holder against the maker of a promissory note. The answer was a general denial. Upon the trial it was assumed by both parties that the plaintiff, when she rested, had given evidence which, unless disproved, would justify a verdict in her favor, and the defendant took the burden. With other evidence he introduced letters written by the plaintiff to the testator, the alleged maker of the note, and at the close of the case asked the court ‘to direct a verdict for the defendant in view of these letters.’ The court declined to do so, and the exception then taken is now placed upon the ground ‘that they showed the note to be without consideration.’ If so, and the defendant relied upon that fact, the attention of the court should have been called to it. Thayer v. Marsh, 75 N. Y. 340. Had it been, other evidence might have been permitted from the plaintiff. She was not called upon to give it in the first instance. The form of the note, its possession, and proof of genuineness, made for her a prima facie right of action.
But we think it quite apparent that the letters referred to were not introduced for the purpose contended for, but rather to show that the note was in fact spurious. We see from the record that all the evidence was directed to that issue. But, however that may be, we can find nothing in the letters themselves, or in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, which would require a trial court to dispose of it as matter of law. The question was for the jury, and was submtted to them in a manner satisfactory to the defendant. Their verdict has been approved by the trial judge and by the general term. We think the exception was not well taken. Nor do we find any error in regard to evidence. So far as the cross-examination of a witness relates either to facts in issue or relevant facts, it may be pursued by counsel as matter of right; but when its object is to ascertain the accuracy or credibility of a witness, its method and duration are subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and unless abused its exercise is not the subject of review; nor can the witness be cross-examined as to any facts which, if admitted, would be collateral and wholly irrelevant to the matter in issue, and which would in no way affect his credit.
The exception presented comes within one or both of the last two conditions. The issue was upon handwriting. The witness N., as an expert, had testified to his belief in its genuineness. It was not suggested that he lacked skill or experience in that matter, nor that both were not sufficient to entitle him to be considered an expert. He had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Schwartzman
...jeweler on approval. The nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sound discretion of the Trial Judge (Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N.Y. 61, 63 1 N.E. 106, 107.) It is well settled that a defendant who chooses to testify may be cross-examined concerning any immoral, vicious, or ......
-
People v. Norman
...96; People v. Alamo, 23 N.Y.2d 630, 298 N.Y.S.2d 681, 246 N.E.2d 496; People v. Sorge, 301 N.Y. 198, 93 N.E.2d 637; Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N.Y. 61, 1 N.E. 106.) Second: in limiting this right of cross-examination in his discretion, the trial judge must require the cross-examiner to make a......
-
State v. Bartell
...either to facts in issue or facts relevant to the issue, it may be pursued by counsel as a matter of right.' See, also, Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N.Y. 61, 63, 1 N.E. 106.' The subject was again discussed in Baus v. Trenton, &c., Traction Corp., 100 N.J.L. 364, 126 A. 473 (E.&A.1924), in whic......
-
People v. Sumpter
...65 N.E.2d 169, 170). Although cross-examination for this purpose is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge (Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N.Y. 61, 1 N.E. 106), in this state it cannot be completely foreclosed. (People v. Zabrocky, supra; People v. Schwartzman, supra; People v. Alamo,......
-
Witness examination
...relevant to information elicited during direct examination. Healy v. Rennert , 9 N.Y.2d 202, 213 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1961); Langley v. Wadsworth , 99 N.Y. 61, 1 N.E. 106 (1885); Goff v. Paul, 8 A.D.3d 971, 778 N.Y.S.2d 609 (4th Dept. 2004); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp., ......
-
Witness examination
...relevant to information elicited during direct examination. Healy v. Rennert , 9 N.Y.2d 202, 213 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1961); Langley v. Wadsworth , 99 N.Y. 61, 1 N.E. 106 (1885); Gof v. Paul, 8 A.D.3d 971, 778 N.Y.S.2d 609 (4th Dept. 2004); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 2......
-
Witness examination
...relevant to information elicited during direct examination. Healy v. Rennert , 9 N.Y.2d 202, 213 N.Y.S.2d 44 (1961); Langley v. Wadsworth , 99 N.Y. 61, 1 N.E. 106 (1885); Gof v. Paul, 8 A.D.3d 971, 778 N.Y.S.2d 609 (4th Dept. 2004); American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 2......
-
Table of cases
...Ct., Queens County, 1956), aff’d 4 A.D.2d 785, 165 C-20 — NEW YORK OBJECTIONS N.Y.S.2d 715 (2d Dept. 1957), § 15:110 Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N.Y. 61, 1 N.E. 106 (1885), § 15:20 Laniado v. New York Hosp., 168 A.D.2d 341, 562 N.Y.S.2d 662 (1st Dept. 1990), § 1:140 LaPenta v. Loca-Bik Ltee Tr......