Lammes v. Beaty

All concur, except Dowling, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and for granting a new trial in the following memorandum: It was reversible error to allow counsel for the defense to interrogate Mr. Lammes about his indebtedness to Monroe County and about his marriages. Ho doubt these questions prejudiced the infant’s case with the jury. Counsel for defense used this evidence in his summation. The court, in a "casual way, told the jury to disregard the evidence.. The damage had already been done. The fact that Mr. Lammes owed the county for the support of his children, had no bearing on…