Case Name: LEGGETT et al. v. SCHWAB
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-02
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 805
Docket Number: 
Parties: LEGGETT et al. v. SCHWAB.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 805–808

Head Matter:
LEGGETT et al. v. SCHWAB.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 2, 1906.)
1. Evidence—Admissions Fbom Silence.
The rule of admission by silence of the truth of statements made in one’s presence extends only to cases where the court can say that the natural, and reasonable inference from silence is admission, and does not extend to evidence given in judicial proceedings.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, §§ 771-778.]
2. Same.
In an action against a wife for goods sold, it appeared that a judgment had been obtained against the husband therefor. He had been examined in supplementary proceedings. The wife heard his testimony, and was also examined in the proceedings. Seld, that the testimony of the husband in the supplementary proceedings was not admissible against the wife as an admission on her part because she did not contradict it.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, §§ 771-778.]
Hooker, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Orange County.
Action by William A. Leggett and others against Julia F. Schwab. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Action for the price of goods sold. Judgment was first obtained against the defendant’s husband therefor. He was examined in supplementary proceed ings thereon before a referee, and she was then examined therein as a witness, having been subpoenaed by the judgment creditor. She was present and heard her husband testify. '•
On the trial of this action the evidence of her husband before the said referee was offered by the plaintiff and excluded. The excluded evidence tended to show that the goods were sold to her.
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.
John Miller, for appellants. .
Graham Witschief, for respondent.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
The evidence of the husband given in supplementary proceedings was offered by the plaintiff on the theory that it was an admission by this defendant, for the reason that she did not contradict it when she heard her husband give it before the referee. The rule of admission by silence of the truth of statements made in one's presence extends only to cases where the court can say that the natural and reasonable inference from silence is admission; and for that reason it does not extend to evidence given in judicial proceedings. It is not to be expected that one will get up and contradict a witness on the stand, or that he will do more than answer questions if he be subsequently called as a witness himself. 1 Gr. on Ev. § 197, and notes. That the tribunal is not a high or imposing one does not make a difference. The same orderly course of procedure belongs there.- I suppose, also, that coverture may stand in the way of the rule applying, for it would hardly be natural and reasonable for a wife to get up in court and brand her husband as a perjurer. Indeed, if she even chides him on getting home it will only be out of the same love and affection which made her naturally and reasonably keep still in court. Every woman is not a Jeanie Deans.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Hooker, J., who dissents.