Case ID: ny-st-rep_35/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jacob Wolkoff, App’lt, v. William E. Tefft et al., Resp’ts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 5, 1891.)
    
    Witness—Impeachment—Evidence.
    Where the plaintiff, as a witness, on cross-examination, has admitted that he was arrested and convicted of a crime, he has a right on redirect to show his innocence of such crime.
    
      Appeal from judgment for defendant, dismissing the complaint, and from order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the judge’s minutes.
    
      Henry Morrison, for app’lt; Palmer & Boothby, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam

The plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf as to important matters. On his cross-examination he testified that he had been arrested about some coats, that a party he was with stole the coats, and that he, the plaintiff, was arrested and ■convicted and served his term in the House of Eefuge. On redirect examination he was asked: Were you guilty or innocept

of that transaction ? The counsel for defendant did not object to the form of the question, and objected to it as immaterial and irrelevant. The witness had a right to show his innocence, and if possible to relieve himself from the unfavorable inference that might be drawn from the fact of his conviction. No record of that had been produced, but if it had been it would not have been conclusive of plaintiff’s guilt. Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y., 467.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and Ingraham, JJ., concur.