Williams v. Clarke
| Decision Date | 25 November 1902 |
| Citation | 182 Mass. 316,65 N.E. 419 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. CLARKE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Jas.
L. Powers, for plaintiff.
Johnson W. Ramsey, for defendant.
This is an action on an account annexed for services as a housekeeper. At the trial the plaintiff was asked concerning a certain conversation with the defendant, in which, according to another witness, the defendant admitted liability. The parties are colored, and the plaintiff, when she began her account of what was said, seemed more anxious to put in an innuendo concerning some white women whom, she said, the defendant announced his intention of having in the house, then to tell the more material part of the talk. The defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to stop the witness when she was about to state what she said to the plaintiff, the court ruling that the whole conversation might go in if any part was competent. This is the only question before us on the bill of exceptions. As to this it would be enough to say taht when the objection was taken, the judge stated that he did not know what the objection was, and that the defendant's counsel made no explanation. It seemed from the moment of the interruption an objection to a statement of anything said by the plaintiff. But had the objection been made more specific no one could have said at that time that what the plaintiff proposed to testify was so remote from the material point that it should be excluded on the principle stated in Com. v. Keyes, 11 Gray, 323, 325; Com. v Campbell, 155 Mass. 539, 30 N.E. 72. The judge had to hear it in some form before he could decide, and it was for the defendant to move for a direction that it should not be considered by the jury if he thought that it was incompetent after it was in. See Brady v. Finn, 162 Mass. 260 267, 38 N.E. 506. This the defendant did not do, and the judge was not called upon to recur to the matter. We understand that the only ruling excepted to was made before the whole conversation was put in, and that the court did not commit the error of declaring separable, scandalous and irrelevant matters admissible merely because it was part of the same tale.
The court ordered judgment and awarded execution, notwithstanding the exceptions, under Rev. Laws, c. 173, § 109, authorizing a judge to make such orders if he finds that the exceptions 'are immaterial, frivolous or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carilli v. Hersey
...that decree should exercise his powers under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 133, as amended by St.1933, c. 300, § 2. See Williams v. Clarke, 182 Mass. 316, 65 N.E. 419;Keith v. Marcus, 180 Mass. 320, 65 N.E. 421;Richmond Co-operative Association, Inc. v. Gill, 285 Mass. 50, 53, 188 N.E. 495;Common......
-
City of Boston v. Santosuosso
...is awarded and is collected and the defeated party prevails upon the exceptions or appeal, he will have his remedy. Williams v. Clarke, 182 Mass. 316, 318, 65 N.E. 419. There are, however, express statutory provisions for review after judgment, by writ of error, by motion to vacate judgment......
-
Carilli v. Hersey
...decree should exercise his powers under G.L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, Section 133, as amended by St. 1933, c. 300, Section 2. See Williams v. Clarke, 182 Mass. 316; Keith Marcus, 182 Mass. 320; Richmond Co-operative Association, Inc. v. Gill, 285 Mass. 50 , 53; Commonwealth v. Millen, 290 Mass. 4......
-
In re Bullock
...and adjudged to be immaterial, frivolous and intended for delay. No appeal lies from such a finding or adjudication. Williams v. Clarke, 182 Mass. 316, 65 N. E. 419;Keith v. Marcus, 182 Mass. 320, 65 N. E. 421. Nevertheless,it was the duty of the judge to consider the exceptions and allow t......