Perth Amboy evening news., 1911-10-17
LAWYER GIVEN
A REPRlMAND
In Trial Over Horse Bought
at Cranbury.

New Brunswick, Oct. 17.ACharles
e. Cook, a lawyer, OF Asbury Park,
was reprimanded by Judge Lloyd in
the circuit court yesterday afternoon
for having failed. as the court said,
In connecting up a line of cross-ex-
| animation which he said that be
meant to connect. The scene came
just before adjournment.
The case was that of Isaac s.
| Everitt, OF Cranbury. against Peter
and Catherine O'Neill. of Asbury
Park, and was the recovery OF $3.50
alleged due for payment of a horse
bought by the defendants from MIR.
, Everitt.
Mr.. Everitt, the plaintiff, went
| upon the witness stand and swore
that he had sold the horse to Peter
O'NeiIl, that the horse had been de-
livered to Mr.. O'Neill and that he
had never been paid for. The sale
| was on March 80 last. After O'NeiI
had tried two horses he had offered
$3.50 for one OF them and the bar
gain had been closed.
On cross-examination Lawyer
| Cook asked the witness Ii he hadn't
previously sold a team of horses to
Mr.. O'Neill.
The question was objected to by
Senator Silzer. counsel for the plain
tiff, he holding that a previous
transaction had nothing to do with
this case. The two lawyers went to
the bench and held a secret confer
ence with the court as to the pur-
pose of the cross-examination. Then
the court admitted this line of Q
examination on the promise that
Lawyer Cook would connect the pre-
vious transaction with the sale Of
| the horse Involved in this suit.
The lawyer tried to get admis-
sions from the witness that he had
told O'Neill that he would give him
the best team Of the team-horses In
| Monmouth county and that If they
were not as represented he would
| exchange the horses until he had a
| satisfactory team. The witness de
MED this. The lawyer followed III
this with many other questions
| about the previous transactions.
Judge Lloyd urged the trial on
and said that he did not intend to
devote q whole day to a horse case
or this nature.
Finally, when Lawyer Cook fin
ished with the witness, Judge Lloyd,
turning to the stenographer, ordered
him to strike out all of the ros
examination. The court said that
Lawyer Cook had promised the
court that he would connect the old
transaction with the present one
and on that understanding the court
had admitted the testimony. The
testimony had not been connected
and he ordered 1t stricken out for
that reason and told the jury to ig-
more the whole cross-examinations
May / have an exception7" ask
ed Lawyer Cook.
mo" replied the court. You
made a promise 10 the court which
.ou have not fulfilled.
Mr.. Cook said that he wanted to
aalsssss higsslf right hsfors SIG ecErs;
question, connecting the two trans
actions and Ii he had not. he wanted
to do SO. He then asked the witness
he hssdHt HeHt@the horse.son which
The suit Tor payment Is PASSED, to
0Neitl to replace TWO horses previ-
ously sold to the defendant, one of
had become sick and one Of
which had died.
The witness said that he had not.
This ended the cross-examfnation,
the plaintiff rested and adjourn
ment was taken until this morning.
After adjournment Judge lloyd
called Lawyer Cook to the bench
and spoke privately to him.