Case ID: nys_85/html/0818-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FREEDMAN,’ P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HONIGSTEIN v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    January 7, 1904.)
    1. Trial—Exclusion of Evidence Corroborating Party—Submission of Issue.
    It is error to exclude evidence corroborating the testimony of defendant on a material issue, and then submit the issue to the jury.
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Morris Honigstein against William S. Hollingsworth and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from the denial of a new trial, defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    See 79 N. Y. Supp. 867.
    ..Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J„ and GIEDERSEEEVE and GREENBAUM, JJ.' '
    Blandy, Mooney & Shipman, for appellants.
    Jacob Rieger, for respondent.
   FREEDMAN,’ P. J.

The case was one for the jury, and it was properly submitted. But there was error in the refusal of the court to permit the defendants to offer corroborative testimony upon a material issue, viz., the issue relating to plaintiff’s alleged discharge and insubordination. This ruling limiting defendants’ evidence upon the main issue, which was duly objected and excepted to, constituted reversible error, within the rule as laid down in Reynolds v. Port Jervis Factory, 32 Hun, 64, and Page v. Krekey, 137 N. Y. 307, 33 N. E. 311, 21 L. R. A. 409, 33 Am. St. Rep. 731.

The judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.