Case ID: ny_106/html/0651-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Gwriam\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Josie Teets, Respondent, v. The Village of Middletown, Appellant.
    An erroneous ruling, excluding testimony affecting only the credibility of a witness, is not a ground for reversal, where it appears that the evidence of the witness was wholly immaterial.
    (Argued May 4, 1887;
    decided June 7, 1887.)
    This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence in not removing an obstruction in one of its streets.
    The following is the mem. of opinion therein :
    • “ 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 furnished 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.”
    
      William F. O’Neil for appellant.
    
      William Vcmamee for respondent.
   Per Gwriam

mem. for affirmance of judgment.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.