Hayes v. Jersey City, Hoboken & Paterson Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
In tort. On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was employed as a lineman by' the defendant and had been in its emplot^ for eight months prior to the receiving the injuries for which this suit was brought. His duty was the repairing of trolley wires and to put up new wires and to set poles.
Read the full summary
In tort. On error to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was employed as a lineman by' the defendant and had been in its emplot^ for eight months prior to the receiving the injuries for which this suit was brought. His duty was the repairing of trolley wires and to put up new wires and to set poles. This work, the plaintiff said, was done from the top of a wagon used by trolley companies to repair trolley wires,- the platform of which, by means of a crank, could be raised as high as twenty feet from the ground. On November 20th, 1903, he was working on that wagon in the town of 'W'eehawken; with…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Vroom, J.
There were four assignments of -causes of error on the part of the plaintiff in error.
The first error assigned is because the court overruled the question of plaintiff’s counsel to Peter Van Sciver, as follows: “Didn’t you go into the hotel where he was and say, 'Mortimer, don’t blame me; it was soft wood.’ Do you remember saying anything to him about the character of the wood ?”
The ground upon which it was insisted that this testimony should be admitted was that- it constituted a part of the res gestee. An examination of the testimony…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. RoseSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
- Thompson v. Giant Tiger Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1937
- State v. RoseSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011