Case ID: ny-sup-ct_13/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DORA PEEL, Respondent, v. JOHN KERN, Appellant.
    
      Witness —irrelevant questions for the purpose of discrediting — discretiona/ry.
    Inquiries on irrelevant topics to discredit a witness, and tlie extent to which a course of irrelevant inquiry may be pursued, are matters submitted to the sound discretion of the trial court. The exercise of that discretion is not the subject of legal review, except in cases of plain abuse and injustice. (La Beau v. The People, 34 IT. Y., 233; Gft. Western Turnpike Oo. v. Loomis, 32 id., 127; QretonY. Smith, 33 id, 245.)
    This action was tor an assault and battery. Tbe defendant was sworn on the trial and denied committing the same.
    The conflict between the plaintiff and her witnesses, and the defendant and his witnesses was entirely irreconcilable.
    The court, on this state of facts, permitted, for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the witness, questions to be put to him, as to his having beaten two other persons, and having had difflcnlty with a third. Affirmative answers were given, accompanied by statements which tended to justify the assault, if they did not wholly justify the same.
    • John Fleming, for appellant. Theodore J. Oogswell, for respondent. ■
   Opinioii by

Barnard, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Tappbn and Taloott, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.