Merluzzi v. Gleeson

• Decision Date: 21 December 1882
• Citation: 59 Md. 214
• Parties: MICHELARCANGELO MERLUZZI v. WILLIAM E. GLEESON, named Executor in the paper propounded as the will of NICHOLAS ANTONIO MERLUZZI.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

59 Md. 214

MICHELARCANGELO MERLUZZI

v.

WILLIAM E. GLEESON, named Executor in the paper propounded as the will of NICHOLAS ANTONIO MERLUZZI.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 21, 1882

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Howard County.

On the 8th of January, 1881, the appellee filed in the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City the will of Nicholas Antonio Merluzzi, who died in that city on or about the 31st of December, 1880. Some time afterwards, the appellant, claiming to be a nephew of the half blood of the testator, filed a caveat against the probate of the will, and upon his caveat issues were framed, and sent for trial to the Baltimore City Court, whence the record was removed, upon the suggestion and affidavit of the appellee, to the Circuit Court for Howard County. The case was tried at the March Term, 1882, of that Court, and resulted in a verdict for the caveator on the first issue, and for the caveatee on all the other issues.

Exception.--The caveatee was examined as a witness on his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked a question, and before it was answered, the counsel for the caveatee interposed and objected to its being asked or answered, but the Court being of opinion and having declared that the rule of law in reference to questions of this character, when it was obvious that an affirmative answer would tend to degrade and disgrace the witness, was to allow the same to be asked by the cross-examining counsel, but that the witness was at liberty to answer the same or not, as he pleased, thereupon allowed this question to be asked, but told the witness he could answer the same or not, as he chose, and the witness thereupon said, "I decline to answer that question." Counsel for the caveator then propounded to the witness a number of questions, to each of which he gave the same answer. He was then asked whether he had not committed each and every one of the several acts inquired about, and to each interrogatory he answered "I decline to answer that question." The witness was then asked, as follows: "Mr. Gleeson, you have declined to answer all of these questions touching the various charges against you, and all the questions as to whether you committed the various acts involved in the charges, now, why do you decline to answer each and all of these questions?" The counsel for the caveatee objected to the asking and answering of the question, and the Court (MILLER, J.,) sustained the objection, and the counsel for the caveator thereupon excepted, and took this appeal.

The cause was argued before ALVEY, STONE,...