Case Name: Michael Noonan, Resp't, v. John H. Strahan, App'lt
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1887-06-24
Citations: 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Noonan, Resp't, v. John H. Strahan, App'lt
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 8
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
Michael Noonan, Resp't, v. John H. Strahan, App'lt
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed June 24, 1887.)
Evidence—Admissibility of.
The plaintiff had testified that the defendant at one time had told him that there was three or four thousand dollars more due to plaintiff which he could not pay. . That he did not have the money at that time, but that he would give his note, etc This was contradicted by the defendant, who also sought to show that as a matter of fact, he had at the time the statement was alleged to have been made, more than three or four thousand in bank. Held, that the evidence was properly excluded.
Appeal from a judgment rendered after a trial by jury. And from an order denying a motion made on the minutes to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
The facts in the case are fully stated in an opinion delivered in a former appeal. 1 N- Y. State Rep., 783.
Thomas Allison, att’y, and David J. Dean, of counsel, for app’lt; L. Laflin Kellogg, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Most of the questions raised on this appeal were decided adversely to the appellant on the former appeal.
The only new questions arise on the exceptions taken by the defendant to the refusal of the court to admit certain evidence offered by the defendant.
The respondent had testified that the appellant at one time had told him that there were three or four thousand dollars more due the respondent which he (the appellant) could not pay.
That he did not have the money at that time, but that he would give his note at three or four months for said amount.
This testimony was contradicted by the appellant.
The appellant then sought to show that as a matter of fact, he had at the time this statement was alleged to have been made, more than the sum of three or four thousand dollars in bank, and questions tending to show that such, was the fact were asked, and under the objection of the respondent, excluded.
There was no error in excluding this evidence.
It did not prove, nor did it tend to prove, that the appellant had not made the statement which it was alleged that he had made.
The record failed to show an exception that constituted a ground for reversal, and the verdict cannot be held to be against evidence or the weight of evidence.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed, with costs.