New York Supreme Court, 1882

Carrington v. Hutson

Carrington v. Hutson
New York Supreme Court · Decided December 15, 1882 · Bookes, Coukt, Learned, Westbrook
35 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 371

Counsel

it. A. Carrington, for the appellant., Abram C. Crosby, for the respondent.

Carrington v. Hutson

Opinion of the Court

By the Coukt :

It was decided in Courtney v. Baker (3 Den., 27,) that in an action for the statutory penalty against a witness who had failed to attend, the plaintiff must show that the witness was material and that damages resulted from his non-attendance. That is, a sound construction of the law. There is no reason why a plaintiff should recover this penalty, unless he was aggrieved; that is, unless the *373absence of the witness caused some injury. There is nothing in the Code Civil Procedure (ยง 853) to change this rule of law.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. .

Present โ€” Learned, P. J., Bookes and Westbrook, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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