Wallace v. Taunton S. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1875 |
| Parties | William Wallace v. Taunton Street Railway Company |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Bristol. Tort for injuries caused by the act of a conductor of the defendant corporation in expelling the plaintiff from one of its cars, in which he was a passenger. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that he was wrongfully expelled from the car by the conductor; that his knee was wrenched and seriously sprained while being so expelled; that he was thereby made very lame, and for some time was unable to walk, and was confined to his house four months or six months before he was able to walk out doors; and that at that time he was still lame and walked with crutches. To establish these facts as to the plaintiff's condition, and to show the extent of his injuries and his incapacity to walk, the plaintiff testified on his own behalf, and called his physician and several other witnesses.
The defendant contended, and introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was rightfully ejected from the car on account of his improper and disorderly conduct; and in reply to, and in contradiction of, the plaintiff's evidence as to the length of time he was confined to his house and the extent of his injuries, called several witnesses who testified that, within two or three days after the alleged injuries were received, they saw the plaintiff walking in his dooryard, and in the public streets, and that they so observed him walking from time to time during the period of four or six months covered by the plaintiff's evidence and that at those times he walked with little apparent lameness and without crutches. To contradict and control this evidence of the defence, the plaintiff offered to call several witnesses who would testify that they had seen him from time to time during the four months he said he had been confined to his house, and that they had seen him sitting in his house with his foot resting upon a pillow in a chair, and that they had helped him from his chair to his bed. This evidence was objected to at this stage of the trial, after the close of the defendant's evidence, on the ground that it should have been introduced, if at all, as a part of the plaintiff's evidence in chief, and that it was not competent and had no legitimate tendency to contradict the evidence of the defence. There was no offer to show by these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
...42 N.E. 642; Bailey v. Bailey, 63 N.W. 341; Hamilton et al. v. Miller, 26 P. 1030, Commonwealth v. Leyden, 113 Mass. 452; Wallace v. Tauton, 119 Mass. 91; Gardner v. Kellogg, 23 Minn. 463; Ellis Pervis, 10 N.Y.S. 628; Thompson on Trials, section 352, and cases cited; Abbott's Criminal Trial......
-
Olson v. Ela
...However, the extent to which a witness may be cross examined is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. Wallace v. Taunton St. Ry., 119 Mass. 91, 93 (1875). Commonwealth v. Makarewicz, supra, 333 Mass. at 593, 132 N.E.2d 294. The rule is that "the pecuniary interest of a witness or ......
-
Richmond v. Hog Creek Oil Co.
...than guide, without imperatively controlling the exercise of that discretion." And in a note to the text in the case of Wallace v. Taunton Street Railway, 119 Mass. 91, it is "The discretion is not subject to review, unless it is shown to have been grossly and oppressively abused." If, as i......
-
Sullivan v. O'Leary
...Com. v. Kelly, Id. 453;Com. v. Silk, 111 Mass. 431;Com. v. Nash, 135 Mass. 541;Com. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122;Wallace v. Railway Co., 119 Mass. 91;Jennings v. Machine Co., 138 Mass. 594;Sewall v. Robbins, 139 Mass. 164;Barrett v. Murphy, 140 Mass. 133, 2 N.E.Rep. 833; Warren v. Water Co.......