Case ID: ny-sup-ct_8/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES E. HADDEN, Respondent, v. FRANCIS HOUGHTALING, Appellant.
    
      Evidence—expm't—opinion of.
    
    This action was brought to recover for materials and work, furnished and performed by the plaintiff in repairing defendant’s house. At the trial, defendant attempted to prove the condition of the premises, immediately previous to the time the work was performed. Held,, that the evidence was properly excluded, as irrelevant and immaterial. A witness, called by defendant, was asked by him, how many days it would take, in his opinion, to perform the work set out in the bill of particulars. Held, that the evidence was properly excluded, because it did not appear that the witness had examined the work done for the purpose of estimating the number of days’ work required to perform it.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.
    
      Whitehead H. Van Wyoh, for the appellant.
    
      S. L. Maeomber, for the respondent.
   Opinion by Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Beady, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed with costs.'