Case Name: MATHIAS M. DUNTZY, Respondent, v. CORNELIUS VAN BUREN, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-11
Citations: 12 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 648
Docket Number: 
Parties: MATHIAS M. DUNTZY, Respondent, v. CORNELIUS VAN BUREN, Appellant.
Judges: BoaedMAN, J., concurred. Leaened, P. J., took no part.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 12
Pages: 648–648

Head Matter:
MATHIAS M. DUNTZY, Respondent, v. CORNELIUS VAN BUREN, Appellant.
Evidence — Physical condition — opinion of witness.
Upon the trial of this action, brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for an assault, his wife was asked: “Did your husband have a rupture before that night (the night of the assault)?” to which she answered, “No.” She was then asked: “Has he one now?” to which she answered, “Yes.” Defendant objected to both questions as calling for the opinion of the witness on a matter as to which it was not shown that she was competent to testify. Held, that the questions were properly allowed; that the question whether or not the plaintiff had a rupture was a fact not resting in opinion, nor did its determination necessarily involve a subject of skill or science.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the ground of surprise and newly discovered evidence.
O. M. Hungerford, for appellant. J. H. Olute, for respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Bocees, J.
BoaedMAN, J., concurred. Leaened, P. J., took no part.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs and printing disbursements.