Legal Opinion

Martin v. Adams

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County

Decided January 19, 1929No. 56Published

1Opinion of the Court

Groff, J.,

This is a motion for a new trial, for which the plaintiff assign six different reasons. We have examined them all and find no virtue in any of them, unless it be the first one. All the reasons, therefore, except the first one, will be dismissed without discussion.

The first reason assigned is: “The court erred in refusing to admit in evidence in rebuttal the testimony of Esther Rottmund that she had heard the defendant say, immediately after the accident, that he had not seen the plaintiff approaching.”

*455The record shows that the defendant’s attention was not called to this fact when…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stetson v. CroskeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1866
  2. Continental Insurance v. DelpeuchSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
  3. Devall v. BurbridgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API