Case ID: silv-ct-app_1/html/0472-01.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, Respondent, v. The Village of Middle-town, Appellant.
    
      Court of Appeals,
    
    
      June 7, 1887.
    Affirming same case, 34 Hun, 631, Mem; 20 W. Dig. 347.
    
      Appeal. Reversal.—An erroneous ruling upon a question which affects the credibility of the witness only, if his evidence is wholly immaterial upon all of the material in issues of the ease, furnishes no valid reason for reversing the judgment.
    Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court.
    
      Wm. F. O'Neil, for appellant.
    
      Wm. Vanamee, for respondent.
   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.