Case Name: Joseph Hoxie, Respondent, v. Daniel B. Allen, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1868-03
Citations: 38 N.Y. 175
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Hoxie, Respondent, v. Daniel B. Allen, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 175–177

Head Matter:
Joseph Hoxie, Respondent, v. Daniel B. Allen, Appellant.
Evidence. Construction of exception to testimony. It seems, that, where an objection to testimony is made in general terms, it will he understood to he to the character of the evidence, and not to the competency of the witness. If the objection is to the latter", it should he specifically made, in order that it may he met and overcome.
This was an action to recover the value of the plaintiff’s services, in procuring the release, at Washington, of the steamship S. S. Lewis, which had been condemned for a violation of the revenue laws. The employment was not denied in the pleadings, nor the rendering of services. The question was upon the value simply. The only question made in the appellant’s points is in relation to the evidence given by E. K. Collins. Mr. Collins testified that he had been in W ashington with respect to getting through claims against the government, in which he was interested; that he had had contracts with the government, and had had claims against the government for services rendered to the government; that he had business at Washington with the departments. He was then asked: “ From that knowledge, and from the statement of Mr. Hoxie as to his services, what do you think is the value of the services as described ? ” To this question the counsel for the defendant obj ected. After being informed of the value of the property restored, he gave an answer' to the question. The jury found for the plaintiff. The judgment upon the verdict was affirmed at the General Term, and the defendant now appeals to this court.
C. A. Rappalo, for the appellant.
J. H. Reynolds, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hunt, Ch. J.
The objection to the evidence of Collins seems to have been to its character, and not to his competency to give it. If the objection had been made at the trial that he had not sufficient knowledge to speak upon the subject, it might have been obviated. The competency of the. evidence, in its nature, was a fair subject of general objection, and to that the objection must be deemed to have applied. That this is a fair construction of the objection is evident from the circumstance that the objection-, and in the same form, was also made to the testimony of Mr. Briggs, whose capacity to speak upon the subject was quite apparent.
I think the- judgment should be affirmed.