Murray v. Chase
Decision Date | 06 January 1883 |
Citation | 134 Mass. 92 |
Parties | Charles N. Murray v. Elihu F. Chase |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued November 9, 1882
Essex. Tort for assault and battery. Answer, a general denial.
In the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., two days before the trial began, the defendant's attorney moved for a continuance, on the ground of the absence and sickness of the defendant's wife, an important witness; and the attorney made and filed an affidavit, signed by himself, alleging that the defendant's wife was a material witness, that she was sick and unable to attend the trial, and that, if present she would testify to certain facts set forth, as he had been informed by the defendant. The plaintiff, under the 26th rule of the Superior Court, admitted that the witness would, if present, testify to the facts stated in the affidavit, and agreed that the same should be received and considered as evidence on the trial, in like manner as if the witness was present and had testified thereto; and a continuance was refused.
At the trial, the defendant's wife appeared as a witness, and testified materially differently from what it was stated she would testify to in the affidavit. The plaintiff then offered the affidavit in evidence; and it was objected to by the defendant, and excluded by the judge, against the plaintiff's exception.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of one cent; and he alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
E. J Sherman & C. U. Bell, for the plaintiff.
J. C Sanborn, for the defendant.
Morton, C. J. C. Allen, Colburn & Holmes, JJ., absent.
We can see no ground upon which the affidavit of the defendant's attorney, made for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Butter v. Sovrensky
...signature, of the party. There are numerous authorities supporting in principle this conclusion. Shores v. Caswell, 13 Metc. 413;Murray v. Chase, 134 Mass. 92;Pickert v. Hair, 146 Mass. 1, 15 N. E. 79; See v. Norris, 234 Mass. 345, 349, 125 N. E. 619;Vaughn v. Robbins, 254 Mass. 35, 36, 149......
-
Pickert v. Hair
...of settling a suit, though relating to facts in controversy in the suit, are not admissible as evidence against his client.” Murray v. Chase, 134 Mass. 92;Treadway v. Railroad Co., 40 Iowa, 526; Parkins v. Hawkshaw, 2 Starkie, 239; Young v. Wright, 1 Camp. 140; Petch v. Lyon, 9 Q.B. 147; Wa......
- Doe v. Erwin
-
Hersey v. Hutchins
...with hers. The conduct of the parties in preparing for trial is always a fair matter for argument State v. Staples, 47 N. H. 113; Murray v. Chase, 134 Mass. 92. The instruction that the case was not to be decided upon the fact as to the comparative wealth or poverty of the parties was corre......