Case Name: MARY CARR, AMENDED TO BE CATHERINE CARR, OSMAN CARR (HER HUSBAND), AND MAY CARR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, OSMAN CARR, AND CATHERINE CARR AND OSMAN CARR, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MOTOR BUS LINES, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; RAYMOND HALL AND IRVING KRAMER, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1938-01-26
Citations: 119 N.J.L. 433
Docket Number: 
Parties: MARY CARR, AMENDED TO BE CATHERINE CARR, OSMAN CARR (HER HUSBAND), AND MAY CARR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, OSMAN CARR, AND CATHERINE CARR AND OSMAN CARR, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MOTOR BUS LINES, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; RAYMOND HALL AND IRVING KRAMER, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 433–434

Head Matter:
MARY CARR, AMENDED TO BE CATHERINE CARR, OSMAN CARR (HER HUSBAND), AND MAY CARR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, OSMAN CARR, AND CATHERINE CARR AND OSMAN CARR, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MOTOR BUS LINES, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; RAYMOND HALL AND IRVING KRAMER, DEFENDANTS.
Submitted October 29, 1937
Decided January 26, 1938.
For the appellant, Charles A. Rooney.
For the respondents, John J. Cuneo (Andrew 0. Witireich, of counsel).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff below for damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant Motor Bus Lines.
The grounds of appeal are twenty-five in number confined to exceptions taken to the admission and rejection of evidence. The appellant divides these into three classes, contending in each instance that the trial court committed reversible error:
1. In admitting and rejecting answers to questions addressed to the plaintiff;
2. Rulings respecting questions addressed to the medical aspects of the case; and
3. That the court's rulings respecting questions addressed to other witnesses were erroneous and prejudicial.
All of these exceptions have been examined and we cannot say that singly or collectively the substantial rights of the parties were affected.
In every instance the trial judge made a serious and determined attempt to keep both the direct and cross-examinations within reasonable bounds, particularly as to that affecting the credibility of the witnesses. Necessarily this must rest in the sound discretion of the trial judge and there is nothing indicating a transgression in this direction.
The judgment under review is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.