Superior Court of New York, 1892

Barrett v. Smith

Barrett v. Smith
Superior Court of New York · Decided July 5, 1892
19 N.Y.S. 1020 (New York Supplement)

Counsel

James A. Seaman, for appellants. Riehard O'Gorman, Jr., for respondent.

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 108th street racket?” for this evidence tended to show that Vero testified untruly when he, upon his direct examination, said: “Ho 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.

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