Case Name: Mary E. Downs, Respondent, v. Herbert J. Taylor, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-01
Citations: 10 Misc. 742
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary E. Downs, Respondent, v. Herbert J. Taylor, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
Mary E. Downs, Respondent, v. Herbert J. Taylor, Appellant.
(New York Common Pleas
Additional General Term,
Term, January, 1895.)
When the evidence in an action for money paid is conflicting on the question whether such money was paid to the defendant by the plaintiff upon certain vouchers produced by her, or by a firm which employed her, the exclusion of testimony of the cashier of the firm to show that the plaintiff, on leaving its employ, took with her vouchers which had been given to the firm by defendant for cash is error.
Appeal from a judgment of the Eighth District Court in favor of the plaintiff, rendered by the justice without a jury,
R. JET. Smith, for respondent.
Robert L. Luce, for appellant.

Opinion:
Bookstaveb, J.
This action was brought to recover certain sums of money, which plaintiff testified that she had paid out'to or for defendant on certain vouchers which she produced at the trial.
Defendant endeavored to prove that the money had been lent or paid to him by Louise & Go., in whose employ the plaintiff then was.
Charlotte E. Taylor, his wife, was Louise & Go. in New York, and he was vice-president of Louise & Go. of Chicago. He produced certain checks, which he claimed represented the amounts of the vouchers, and by which they had been paid. He sought to show by the cashier of Louise & Co. of New York that plaintiff, when she left their employ, had taken with her certain vouchers which had been given by defendant to Louise & Go. for cash. The question asked was excluded, and inasmuch as the testimony is very conflicting, and the line of inquiry sought to be introduced by this excluded question would probably have shown light upon an obscure and conflicting state of facts, we think that the justice erred in excluding the evidence.
The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Bisohoff, J., concurs.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. '