Case ID: nys_67/html/1112-01.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

BIEGELSON v. KAHN et al.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    January 3, 1901.)
    Interested Witness—Credibility—Rejection op Testimony—Instruction.
    An instruction that, before the jury could reject the testimony of any witness, they must be satisfied that the witness willfully, knowingly, and corruptly swore falsely, was erroneous, since the jury had the right to disregard the testimony of an interested witness without being satisfied that such witness willfully, knowingly, and corruptly .swore falsely.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by one Biegelson against Kahn and another. From an order denying a new trial, and from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and O’DWYER and HAS-CALL, JJ.
    Robert L. Turk, for appellants.
    A. & C. Steckler, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

At the plaintiff’s request the court charged the jury, “Before they can reject the testimony of any witness in the case, the jury must he satisfied that that person willfully, knowingly, and corruptly swore falsely,” to which charge the defendants duly excepted. This charge did not state the rule correctly. The jury had a right to disregard the testimony of the interested witnesses if, for any substantial reason, they were dissatisfied with it; and, it was not necessary, before rejecting the testimony of an interested witness, that the jury should be satisfied that the witness willfully, knowingly, and corruptly swore falsely.

Judgment and order appealed from reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.