Woicicky v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 22 December 1920 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | WOICICKY v. ANDERSON. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Earnest C Simpson, Judge.
Action by Adam Woicicky against Christian Anderson to recover damages for injuries to crops growing on the plaintiff's land by cattle of the defendant negligently permitted to enter thereon. Denial by the defendant and a counterclaim with two counts; the first to recover damages for injuries to crops growing upon the defendant's land by cattle of the plaintiff negligently permitted to enter thereon; the second to recover the reasonable value of a quantity of milk alleged to have been sold to the plaintiff. Denial by the plaintiff of the allegations of the counterclaim, brought to the court of common pleas in New Haven county and tried to the jury before Simpson, J.; verdict for the defendant to recover $90.83 on the counterclaim, and appeal by the plaintiff.
No error.
Claude B. Maxfield, of New Haven, for appellant.
Omar W. Platt, of Milford, for appellee.
The plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict was properly denied. Under the evidence the jury could reasonably find the issues for the defendant and render such verdict as it did.
The remaining reasons of appeal relate to rulings as to the admission of evidence.
The defendant, in support of his claim that he had sold 1,570 quarts of milk to the plaintiff, testified that he had kept a ledger in which he had entered daily the number of quarts delivered to the plaintiff, and that from this ledger he had copied on a paper the items as to milk delivered, copying only dates and quantities, and had given the paper to his counsel to guide him in preparing his counterclaim; that this copy had been made after this suit was begun; and that some two or three months later, in his absence, a fire occurred in his home by which, among other articles, the ledger had been destroyed.
The paper, containing only such dates and items, was offered in evidence by the defendant as secondary evidence of the contents of the ledger. To its admission the plaintiff objected because the paper did not disclose to whom the milk was sold.
The defendant's ledger containing the milk account would have been admissible in evidence, and, upon proof of its loss under circumstances which satisfied the court that secondary evidence of its contents should be admitted, a copy of a part or the whole of the ledger would be admissible. The court therefore correctly ruled that the mere absence of the name of the vendee of the milk on the copy offered did not make it inadmissible.
The suggestion was made before us that since this copy of a portion of the account on the ledger was made by the plaintiff after this action was begun for the purpose of aiding his co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connecticut Bank and Trust Co. v. Wilcox
...existence and the present unavailability of the missing document, and (b) the contents of the missing document. Woicicky v. Anderson, 95 Conn. 534, 536, 111 A. 896 (1920); Kelsey v. Hanmer, 18 Conn. 311, 317 (1847); Witter v. Latham, 12 Conn. 392, 399 (1837); C. McCormick, Evidence (3d Ed.1......
-
Andrews v. Aldrich
...preliminary question, proof of which is addressed to the court. Sanders v. Burnham, 91 Vt. 480, 483, 484, 100 A. 905; Woicicky v. Anderson, 95 Conn. 534, 111 A. 896, 897. There was no such proof here. The statement of counsel to the effect that neither the letters nor Mrs. Cobb, the address......
-
Alice Andrews v. Carl J. Aldrich
... ... question, proof of which is addressed to the court ... Sanders v. Burnham, 91 Vt. 480, 483, 484, ... 100 A. 905; Woicicky v. Anderson, 95 Conn ... 534, 111 A. 896, 897. There was no such proof here. The ... statement of counsel to the effect that neither the letters ... ...
-
Brown v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...no right to introduce secondary evidence of any sort in proof of it. City Bank v. Thorp, 78 Conn. 211, 218, 61 A. 428; Woicicky v. Anderson, 95 Conn. 534, 536, 111 A. 896; State v. Jones, 132 Conn. 682, 683, 47 A.2d 185. The court's exclusion of the newspaper clipping was correct. In saying......