The Superior Court of New York City, 1892

Barrett v. Smith

Barrett v. Smith
The Superior Court of New York City · Decided July 5, 1892
47 N.Y. St. Rep. 936

Counsel

Richard O’Gorman, Jr., for resp’t; James A. Seaman, for app’lts.

Barrett v. Smith

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

—It was not error to allow the plaintiff to show that the witness Vero had said at the time of his arrest: “Is this the One Hundred and Eighth street racket; ” for this evidence tended to show that Vero testified untruly when he, upon his direct examination, said, “No unusual accident was brought to my attention, except when I was arrested.” Upon the whole case the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.