Case ID: ny-sup-ct_8/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BYRON MARKS, Respondent, v. HIRAM I. KING, Appellant.
    
      Witness—what evidence allowed to impair his statement.
    
    This action was brought against the defendant, as indorser of a promissory note. The defense was, that the indorsement was a forgery. At the trial, the defendant offered to prove that a witness, called by the plaintiff, had been instrumental in getting one Bell indicted for the forgery of the note in suit, claiming that such evidence was admissible on the ground, that, if he was so instrumental, it militated against and impaired his opinion, previously given in evidence, that the indorsement was genuine. Held, that the evidence was properly excluded. He might have doubted whether the defendant would swear before the grand jury that the indorsement was not his, and might have desired to put him to the test of his oath; and, with a view to try the defendant’s sincerity, in his assertion that his name on the note was a forgery, he might have aided in procuring his attendance before the grand jury, and thus have been, in fact, instrumental in obtaining the indictment, notwithstanding his settled conviction and full belief that the indorsement was genuine.
    Motion for a new trial on a case and exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the General Term. In addition to what is stated above, the General Term examined and approved the action of the court below, in receiving in evidence certain drafts and checks; but its decision was based entirely upon the facts of the case, and it is not considered of sufficient general interest to justify its publication.
    
      C. W. Hotchkiss, for the respondent.
    
      Chapman <fs Martin, for the appellant.
   Opinion by Bocees, J.

Miller, P. J., and Boardman, J., concurred.

Judgment ordered for plaintiff.