Case ID: ny_84/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Andrews, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold Dollner et al., Appellants, v. William Lintz, Respondent.
    (Argued March 10, 1881;
    decided March 22,1881.)
    The testimony of Eneas, a witness for defendant, was taken by commission some eighteen months prior to the trial. A witness called by plaintiff to impeach Eneas testified that he had known him intimately for fifteen or eighteen years. He was then asked what is his reputation for truth and veracity. This was objected to on the ground that the question was directed to the reputation of the witness at the time of the trial and not to the time when the commission was executed. The objection was overruled. Held, no error. The court sáy:
    
      “ The exception is not tenable for several reasons: First. General reputation is not usually the growth of a day or month, but results in most cases from a course of life or conduct for a period of time. Proof that the reputation of a witness is now bad might justify the jury, in the absence of countervailing evidence, in inferring, within reasonable limits as to time, that it was bad before the day of the trial. The trial judge may control the range of the inquiry, and it would be for the jury to determine, upon all the circumstances, as to the weight of the evidence. Second. But another conclusive answer to the exception is, that the witness Henderson, in reply to the question, referred to the reputation of Eneas at and before the time of his examination on commission, and said that his reputation was bad ever since he had known him.”
    Various other questions were presented upon exceptions to the reception and rejection of evidence, which were disposed of upon the facts.
    
      Nathaniel C. Moak for appellants.
    
      S. H. Thayer for respondent.
   Andrews, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.