Murray v. Chase
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for assault and battery. Answer, a general denial. In the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., .two days before the trial began, the defendant’s attorney moved for a continuance, on the ground of the absence and sickness of the defendant’s wife, an important witness; and the attorney made and filed an affidavit, signed by himself, alleging that the defendant’s wife was a material witness, that she was sick and unable to attend the trial, and that, if present, she would…
Read the full summary
Tort for assault and battery. Answer, a general denial. In the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., .two days before the trial began, the defendant’s attorney moved for a continuance, on the ground of the absence and sickness of the defendant’s wife, an important witness; and the attorney made and filed an affidavit, signed by himself, alleging that the defendant’s wife was a material witness, that she was sick and unable to attend the trial, and that, if present, she would testify to certain facts set forth, as he had been informed by the defendant. The plaintiff, under the 26th rule of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Morton, O. J.
We can see no ground upon which the affidavit of the defendant’s attorney, made for the purpose of procuring a continuance, was competent evidence. The plaintiff contends that it is admissible under the rule which permits proof that a party to a suit has suppressed evidence, or has suborned or attempted to suborn a witness. Such acts of a party are competent, because they are in the nature of admissions, and tend to show a consciousness that he has not a good case, the fair inference being that, if a man has a good case, he will not resort to corrupt means to sustain it. This…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hersey v. HutchinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1899
- Butter v. SovrenskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931