Gould v. Smith

The questions here arise upon a plea in abatement to an attachment suit founded upon the defendant’s alleged non-residence.

At the trial the defendant, upon cross-examination, testified that he was trustee for his son of some property in Belleville, Illinois, and was thereupon inquired of who paid for the property. This question was objected to and ruled out as calling for irrelevant testimony. The plaintiff complains of this ruling as erroneous.

I fail to see the legitimacy of the evidence sought to be developed by the excluded inquiry. For the purposes of the issue, of what consequence was it…