Case ID: nys_19/html/1020-02.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

Barrett, Respondent, v. Smith et al., Appellants.
    
      (Superior Court of New York City,
    
    
      General Term.
    
    July 5, 1892.)
    Action by Annie Barrett, an infant, by Albert T. David, her guardian ad litem, against George Waldo Smith and John S. Sills.
    For former report, see 14 N. Y. Supp. 307.
    Argued before Freedman, Dugro, and Gildersleeve, JJ.
    
      James A. Seaman, for appellants. Riehard O'Gorman, Jr., for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

It was not error to allow the plaintiff to show that the witness Vero had said at the time of his arrest: “Is this the 108th street racket?” for this evidence tended to show that Vero testified untruly when he, upon his direct examination, said: “Ho unusual accident was brought to my attention, except when I was arrested.” Upon the whole case the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.