Munkkonen v. Trevaskis
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 104, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of O. P. Allegheny Co., Third T., 1907, No. 515, on verdict for defendant in case of Joseph Munkkonen v. John Trevaskis. Trespass to recover damages for criminal conversation. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Error assigned, was the action of the court in excluding the testimony of the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mestrezat,
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages which he alleges he sustained by reason of illicit relations between his wife and the defendant. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff was called and sworn as a witness in his own behalf. Before he testified, the defendant’s counsel objected generally to his testimony on the ground that he was incompetent because he was the plaintiff in the case and the gist of the action was the wife’s adultery. The learned court below held that he, was “not a competent witness in this case to testify upon any…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FilerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Commonwealth v. Meadville Cooperative Ass'nCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974