Penfield v. Carpender
New York Supreme Court
IN.ERROR, on certiomri to a jus.tice?s .court, » mi . * . V , • i v 1 ne action,- in-the court below, .was .to. recover; damages 101? sbcep,'belonging to the plaintiff, killed by the--defendant’s dbg.' At the trial, a witness was called,- on behalf of the defendant., te» á con'Versatihh between him and the defendant,/ in which die latter.had denied that he was the owner of the dog;, the tesfimony, was objected to, but the- .justice decided .that the witness might go,through…
Read the full summary
IN.ERROR, on certiomri to a jus.tice?s .court, » mi . * . V , • i v 1 ne action,- in-the court below, .was .to. recover; damages 101? sbcep,'belonging to the plaintiff, killed by the--defendant’s dbg.' At the trial, a witness was called,- on behalf of the defendant., te» á con'Versatihh between him and the defendant,/ in which die latter.had denied that he was the owner of the dog;, the tesfimony, was objected to, but the- .justice decided .that the witness might go,through with his 'testimony, aind that he Would then in--. form't-hq. jury what part' was admissible,,and what not.'; And the…
1Opinion of the Court
.Per-Curiam.
The admission of such testimony, was illegal and dangerous, and no subsequent caution or advice by the justice,-that the jury ought to. disregard'what the witnesses had sworn', can cure .the irregularity. • The law forbids such testimo;ny, hecaiise it mayAaiie anánfluence upon honest jurors, .who aré unconscious of the impressions which- they retain, inotwith^ standing;.the'effort of the court to obliterate-then}.' V. "
The tazation 'of costs .was alsoillegab
Judgmeht-reversedt-
2Cited by10 opinions
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Seckerson v. SinclairNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- State v. RoverNevada Supreme Court · 1875
- Hamblett v. HamblettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Clark v. CrandallNew York Supreme Court · 1848
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.