Case ID: ny-super-ct_61/html/0458-01.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

ANNIE BARRETT, an infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent v. GEORGE WALDO SMITH, et al., Appellants.
    
      Evidence—Negligence. Proof of subsequent admissions by witness, the servant of defendants, denied on cross-examination, and inconsistent with direct testimony, when competent. In an action for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligent management of defendants' truck whereby plaintiff was run over at 108th street andéth avenue, the driver testified in behalf of defendants that no unusual accident was brought to his attention except when he was arrested. He was arrested at 125 th street and denied, on cross-examination and over objection by defendants, having asked the police officer “Is this the 108th street racket 9 ” Held that the testimony of the police officer in rebuttal that the driver asked said question was competent.
    
    Before Freedman, P. J., Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ.
    
      Decided July 5, 1892.
    Appeal by defendants from a judgment entered upon a verdict in plaintiff’s favor and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      James A. Seaman, for appellants.
    
      Richard O' Gorman, Jr., for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.