Case ID: nys_90/html/1104-02.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

LINICK, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL RY. CO., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
    October 21, 1904.)
    Action by Katharine Linick against the International Railway Company.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event. Held, that it was error to exclude the evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of proving, in effect, that plaintiff’s husband and witness attempted to induce the witness McNamara to promote and aid plaintiff’s claim. Schultz v. Third Ave. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242: Nowack v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 166 N. Y. 433, 60 N. E. 32, 54 L. R. A. 592, 82 Am. St. Rep. 691; Gumby v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 65 App. Div. 38, 72 N. Y. Supp. 551; Lamb v. Lamb, 146 N. Y. 317, 41 N. E. 26.