Martin v. New York & Stamford Railway Co.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. We affirm because (a) of the form of the questions; (b) the inquiry reached into a collateral field which would evoke testimony as to what different parts of the car others were in, whether or not they had hold of stanchions or were set for a jar, whether they were seated or standing, whether they had knowledge of the curve and its possible effect, etc., thus placing the inquiry in the realm of collateral matters, the range of which is properly governed by the trial court’s discretion; (c) the ruling was not prejudicial, in view of the other testimony…