Case Name: William A. Leggett and Others, Appellants, v. Julia Florence Schwab, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-02
Citations: 111 A.D. 341
Docket Number: 
Parties: William A. Leggett and Others, Appellants, v. Julia Florence Schwab, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 341–345

Head Matter:
William A. Leggett and Others, Appellants, v. Julia Florence Schwab, Respondent.
Second Department,
March 2, 1906.
Evidence—when testimony of husband on supplementary proceedings is not admissible in subsequent action against wife.
Evidence given by a husband in supplementary proceedings brought against him, which tends to show that his wife was the real debtor, is not admissible in a subsequent action against the wife, even though she'was present at the supplementary proceedings and did not dispute the evidence.
The rule of admission by silence of the truth of statements made in one’s presence does not extend to evidence given in judicial proceedings.
Hooker, J., dissented, witii opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiffs, William A. Leggett and others, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 14th day of April, 1905, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the Orange Trial Term, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Action for the price of goods sold. Judgment was first obtained against the defendant’s husband therefor. He was examined in supplementary proceedings 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.
John Miller, for the appellants.
Graham Witschief, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The evidence of the husban'd given in supplementary proceed? ings 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 silencé 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 gel 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 Greenl. 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 should be affirmed.
Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., read for reversal. ~