Strong v. Connell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the conversion of a horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., the plaintiff offered evidence that he sent the defendant with the plaintiff’s horses to draw certain logs on level ground, and told the defendant not to take the horses upon a hill, and that the plaintiff had engaged oxen with which to draw the logs on the hill down to level ground; that the defendant took the horses upon the hill to drag a log lying there, about sixty feet, to a…
Read the full summary
Tort for the conversion of a horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., the plaintiff offered evidence that he sent the defendant with the plaintiff’s horses to draw certain logs on level ground, and told the defendant not to take the horses upon a hill, and that the plaintiff had engaged oxen with which to draw the logs on the hill down to level ground; that the defendant took the horses upon the hill to drag a log lying there, about sixty feet, to a steep bank, where the log would roll down to level ground, and in attempting to draw the log across a ravine about twenty…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
If the testimony of the plaintiff as to the conversation between him and the defendant was material, it was as tending to show an admission by the defendant that he was in *577the wrong, and might have been introduced by the plaintiff in putting in his case. It was therefore within the discretion of the presiding judge to exclude it when offered in rebuttal of the defendant’s evidence.
The subject of the instructions requested was rightly submitted to the jury together with the other circumstances of the case.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Eames v. WhittakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Howes v. ColburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Murray v. KnightMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892