Case Name: Mary Carey v. Thomas W. Carey
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1872-02
Citations: 4 Daly (N.Y.) 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Carey v. Thomas W. Carey.
Judges: 
Reporter: Daly's Common Pleas Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 270–273

Head Matter:
Mary Carey v. Thomas W. Carey.
Where an appeal is based on the ground of an improper rejection of competent testimony, the case must show clearly that there was an exception taken to such rejection, or that the appellant was injured thereby.
It seems, that since the act of 1867 (L. 1867, ch, 887), husband and wife are (in a suit for limited divorce) as competent to give evidence in their own behalf as any other witnesses. Per Robinson, J.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury.
This was an action for a limited divorce tried at special term in January, 1871, before a judge and'jury.
On the trial the plaintiff was offered as a witness in her own behalf, and testified as to acts of cruelty on the part of defendant. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant was offered as a witness in his own behalf, and what took place is. stated by the case on appeal as follows :
“ Plaintiff’s counsel.—1 object to the defendant testifying-in his own behalf. I confined all my questions to what occurred when the husband and wife were alone together.
“ Court.—I shall confine the defendant’s testimony strictly to those facts testified to by the wife, where he and she were alone together.
“ Objection allowed, and exception taken.” -
John Townshend, for appellant.
Chas. E. Whitehead, for respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court. —Daly, Ch. J.
—It does not appear from the case as settled, that the defendant took any exception to the ruling that his testimony would be confined to what occurred between himself and his wife when alone together. The only objection made was by the plaintiff when the defendant was offered as a witness upon his own behalf, and all that appears' in the case is, " objection allowed, and exception taken." What objection was allowed? Not that the defendant was permitted to testify in his own behalf, for the objection was not allowed, as he was permitted to testify in his own behalf. Was an objection made by the defendant to the limitation of' the defendant's testimony by the ruling of the judge ? If it were, it does not appear in the case, which refers to an exception taken to an objection which was allowed by the judge. It does not therefore clearly appear that the defendant took any exception, or whether it was he or the plaintiff that took an exception to the allowance of an objection, or what the objection was that was allowed. The defendant offered no testimony upon which to get a ruling by the court, nor did he put any question which the court excluded, to show us that he was injured by the exclusion of testimony which he was entitled to give, and which he was prevented from giving by the decision of the court. Unless he can show us upon this appeal how he was injured and in what the error of the court consisted, we cannot reverse the judgment and give him a new trial (Graham v. Dunigan, 2 Bosw. 521, 522.)
Present, Daly, Ch. J., Robinson and J. F. Daly, JJ.