Case ID: ny-sup-ct_12/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bocees, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MATHIAS M. DUNTZY, Respondent, v. CORNELIUS VAN BUREN, Appellant.
    
      Evidence — Physical condition — opinion of witness.
    
    Upon the trial of this action, brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for an assault, his wife was asked: “Did your husband have a rupture before that night (the night of the assault)?” to which she answered, “No.” She was then asked: “Has he one now?” to which she answered, “Yes.” Defendant objected to both questions as calling for the opinion of the witness on a matter as to which it was not shown that she was competent to testify. Held, that the questions were properly allowed; that the question whether or not the plaintiff had a rupture was a fact not resting in opinion, nor did its determination necessarily involve a subject of skill or science.
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the ground of surprise and newly discovered evidence.
    
      O. M. Hungerford, for appellant. J. H. Olute, for respondent.
   Opinion by

Bocees, J.

BoaedMAN, J., concurred. Leaened, P. J., took no part.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs and printing disbursements.