Case ID: ny-st-rep_8/html/0214-01.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

Josie Teets, Respt, v. Village of Middletown, App’lt.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed June 7, 1887.)
    
    Evidence—Witness—Relations to fabty.
    It is always competent to inquire what relations exist between a party and his witness, lor the purpose of showing the motive and influence under which the evidence is given, and the existence of any bias or prejudice on the part of the witness. Such evidence, however, affects the credibility of the witness only; and if his evidence is wholly immaterial upon all of the material issues of the case, an erroneous ruling upon such question furnishes no valid reason for reversing the judgment.
    Appeal from judgment of supreme court, general term, second department, affirming judgment for plaintiff, for $3,000 damages in action to recover for personal injuries.
    Defendant’s street commissioner on the 28th of June, 1883, in paving a gutter on the east side of Academy avenue, had left several small cart loads of sand and gravel within a few feet of the curb. The street was twenty-four feet wide. A street lamp about eighty feet from the place of the accident partially lighted one side of the street. While plaintiff was driving down said avenue about nine p. m. , with one Dusenbury, the wagon struck the heap and plaintiff was thrown over the dash-board and under the horses feet.
    She arose without assistance, and visited several places with Dusenberry and returned home about ten p. M.
    Defendant’s counsel, on cross-examination, offered to prove that Dusenberry was engaged to be married to the plaintiff, which was excluded and exception was taken.
    
      Wm. F. O’Niel, for app’lt; Wm. Vanamee, for resp’t.
    
      
       Affirming 34 Hun, 62.
    
   Per Curiam

The exception taken by the defendant’s counsel to the ruling of the trial court excluding an answer to his question, on cross-examination, to the plaintiff’s witness as to whether he was engaged to the plaintiff or not, was undoubtedly well taken. It is always competent to inquire what relations exist between a party and his witness, for the purpose of showing the. motive and influence under which the evidence is given, and the existence of any bias or prejudice on the part of the witness. Such evidence, however, affects the credibility of the witness only; and, if his evidence is wholly immaterial upon all of the material issues of the case, an erroneous ruling upon such question furnishes no valid reason for reversing the judgment. That was the case here. No material question of fact was controverted on the trial, and the evidence of the witness could have been wholly stricken from the minutes without affecting the result in the least degree.

The defendant was not prejudiced by the ruling, and the judgment should therefore be affirmed.

All concur.