Case ID: ny-st-rep_37/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J. Daniels, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benjamin J. Blankman, Resp’t, v. John McQueen, Adm’r, Appl’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed March 13, 1891.)
    
    Evidence—Code Orv. Pbo., § 839.
    Testimony given by a witness upon re-examination as to personal transactions with a decedent is not objectionable under § 839 of the Code, where he has been questioned by the counsel for the administrator on cross-examination as to the same subjects.
    Appeal from order of special term denying motion for new trial on a case containing exceptions, a reference having been had to determine the validity of a claim against the decedent’s estate.
    
      A. McDonald, for app’lt; D. C. Briggs, for resp’t.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

We have examined the record in the case at bar and see no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the judge at the special term.

Hone of the objections presented upon the record are well taken; and we do not think it necessary to refer to them in detail, because the counsel for the appellant has not considered the question of sufficient importance to refer in his points to the correct folios in the case affecting the same; but reference is made to some imaginary case which is not before the court.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Daniels, J.

It is quite clear that the answers obtained from the witness Pandjiris on her re-examination were free from legal exception. For on her cross-examination she was questioned on the same subject by the counsel for the administrator. And after that examination the claimant’s counsel was entitled to fortify or explain, or add to her answers given by way of cross-examination. In no other respect does the rules of evidence appear to have been violated, and the mode adopted for the final disposition of the case was regular.

It is, therefore, considered that the order made should be affirmed, with costs.

Brady, J., concurs.