Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Witness,

tion.

v.

cian testifying for defendant by calling other w389 (III.) Redirect examination of witness, attending physicians of insured. Travelers' Ins. as to supposed contradictory answers made at Co. v. Fletcher American Nat. Bank of Indian- previous trial, held erroneous, where she denied apolis, 148 N. E. 501.

making them.-Buerger v. Buerger, 148 N. E.

274. III. EXAMINATION. (A) Taking Testimony in General.

(E) Contradiction and corroboration of Cm 240(2) (Mass.) Trial judge has discretion ww 414(1) (Mass.) Evidence contradicting teg. to permit leading questions on direct examina- timony of commonwealth's witness held ad. tion.--Banca Italiana Di Sconto v. Columbia missible to rebut inference that latter's change Counter Co., 148 N. E. 105,

of testimony was echo from district attorney's

office.-Commonwealth y. Nason, 148 N. E. 110. (B) Cross-Examination and Re-examina.

ww414(2) (Mass.) Statement of witness corOmw267 (Mass.) Extent of cross-examination Commonwealth v. Nason, 148 N. E. 110.

roborating his testimony properly received.matter largely within discretion of court.- Om414(2) (Mass.) Testimony as to state. Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 148 N. E. 123. Cum 268(1) (Mass.) Exclusion of question ask- sible to show testimony at trial not a recent in.

ments made by witness to attorney held admis. ed state's witness on cross-examination as to vention.-Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 148 N. date of her marriage held within court's dis- E. 123. cretion.—Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E. 113.

WORDS AND PHRASES. w 268(8) (Mass.) Exclusion of question asked witness on cross-examination held within “Abuse of discretion."--State Ferranto court's discretion and not error.-Common (Ohio) 148 N. E. 362. wealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E. 113.

“Accessory.”—People v. Richie (III.) 148 N. E. ww270 (2) (Mass.) In prosecution for murder, 265. exclusion of question asked on cross-examination "After decease of my children.”-Richardson y. of state's witness relating to matters collateral Warfield (Mass.) 148 N. E. 141. or immaterial held not error.-Commonwealth v. "Amicus curiæ.”—In re Perry (Ind. App.) 148 Gettigan, 148 N. E. 113.

N. E. 163. Question asked for purpose of showing “Any interest in real estate.”—Baker v. Comstate's witness father of illegitimate child prop missioner of Corporations and Taxation erly excluded.--Id.

(Mass.) 148 N. E. 593. Exclusion of question on cross-examination “Arising out of employment."-McCarter v. La whether state's witness was well known in po Rock (N. Y.) 14S N. E. 523. lice circles held proper.-Id.

“Arrangements.”—McCoy v. Jordan (N. Y.) Questions as to conversations had when war 148 N. E. 793. rant for defendant's arrest was applied for "Association.”—Bouchard First People's held properly excluded as immaterial.-Id.

Trust (Mass.) 148 N. E. 895. m277(1) (Mass.) In cross-examination of ad- “Attempt to commit crime.”—People v. Werbverse parties, great latitude of inquiry is al low (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 786. lowed. —Commonwealth v. Gettigan, 148 N. E.) “Award.”—Bruce v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of 113.

America (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 161.

"Bribery.”—Curtis v. State (Ohio) 148 N. IV. CREDIBILITY, IMPEACHMENT. CON

831. TRADICTION, AND CORROBORATION. "Bucket shop."-Sawers Grain Co. v. Teagar(B) Character and Conduct of Witness.

den (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 205. W337 (6) (Mass.) Evidence of extraneous of

"Casual employee."- Bailey v. Humrickhouse fenses held admissible as affecting credibility "Cause of action."—Zenith Bathing Pavilion :

(Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 428. of defendant.-Commonwealth v. Corcoran, 118

Fair Oaks S. S. Corporation (X. Y.) 148 N. N. E. 123, Ca 340(2) (Mass.) Credibility affected only by "Cocotte."-Rovira v. Boget (N. Y.) 148 N. E.

E. 532. evidence of witness' disbelief in God.--Allen v.

534, Guarante, 148 N. E. 461.

“Compensation,"-Banner Milling Co. v. State C) Interest and Bias of Witness.

(N. Y.) 148 N. E. 668.
“Confirmed credit." - Lamborn

National 376 (Mass.) Statement of witness corrob

Park Bank of New York (N. Y.) 148 X. E. orating his testimony properly received.--Com

661. monwealth v. Nason, 148 N. E. 110.

"Confirmed irrevocable letter of credit." — C377 (Mass.) Records of district court in

Lamborn v. National Park Bank of New abortion charge held inadmissible as affecting

York (N. Y.) 148 N. E, 664, credibility of Witness.-Commonwealth v. Na- “Constitutional question.”—People v. Cermak son, 148 N. E. 110.

(1ll.) 148 N. E. 382. (D) Inconsistent Statements by Witness.

“Constructive willfulness.”_Bremer 5. Lake

Erie & W. R, Co. (III.) 148 X. E. 862. Em379(1) (Mass.) Evidence of prior contra- "Current expenses."-State v. Brown (Ohio) dictory statements of witness held admissible

148 N. E. 95. under statute.-Commonwealth v. Gettiyan, 148 “Damages." — Banner Milling Co. v. State (N. N. E. 113.

Y.) 148 N. E. 668, Om>379(2) (Ind.) Cross-examination of accus- “Dealer.":_State v. Brown (Ohio) 148 N. E. 9. ed's wife 'as to telephone conversation incrim- "Debt."—Gilchrist v. Cotton (Ind. App.) 148 inating to accused proper.--Blum v. State, 118 N, E. 435. N. E. 193.

Defect.”—Gregoire v. City of Lowell (Mass.) Co379(2) (N.Y.) Accused's testimcny

148 N. E. 376; Lamberti v. Neal (Mass.) cross-examination, as to having pleaded guilty 148 N. E. 403. to larceny, held admissible, as bearing upon his “Defect in condition of machinery.”—Lamberti credibility. People v. Steinmetz, 148 N. E. 597. v. Neal (Mass.) 148 N. E. 463. 0-380 (5) (Ind.) State could impeach its own “Delinqueney."--Robinson v. Miller (11I.) 148 witness where testimony prejudicial. N. E. 319. Blum v. State, 118 N. E. 193.

"Discretion."-State v. Ferranto (Ohio) 148 383 (Ind.) Witness can only be impeached N. E. 362. by proof of statements out of court, contrary “Distinguishing mark.”-Werber v. Hughes to testimony given on cross-examination, when (Ind.) 148 N. E. 149. facts of impeaching statements would be com "Double jeopardy." --People v, Snyder (N. 1.) petent.-Blum v. State, 148 N. E. 193.

118 N. E. 796.

on

was

v.

For cases in Dec.Dig, & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER "Employee."-Sinclair Refining Co. v. Indus City of East Cleveland (Ohio) 148 N. E.

trial Commission (Ill.) 148 N. E. 291; State 350. v. Duffy (Ohio) 148 N. E. 572.

“Remedy."-Lamberti v. Neal (Mass.) 148 N. Equitable interest."--Baker v. Commissioner E, 463,

of Corporations and Taxation (Mass.) 148 "Reproduction value."-City of Cincinnati v. N. E. 593.

Public Utilities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. "Excise."-State v. Brown (Ohio) 148 N. E. 95. E. 817. “Excise tax."-Firestone_v. City of Cam- / "Res ipsa loquitur doctrine."-Baltimore & 0. bridge (Ohio) 148 N. E. 470.

S. W. R. Co. v, Hill (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. “Express trust."-Bouchard v. First People's 489. Trust (Mass.) 148 N. E. 895.

"Retirement reserve."-City of Cincinnati v. "Factor."--Shoyer v. Edmund Wright-Ginsberg Public Utilities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. Co. (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 328.

E. 817, “Final and conclusive.”—McLaughlin v. Quinn “Revenue.”—People v. Cermak (III.) 148 N. E. (Mass.) 148 N. E. 458.

382. "Final decision."—Wyman v. Hageman (I11.) | "Safety ground wire."-Lamberti Neal 148 N. E. 852.

(Mass.) 148 N. E. 463. "Final judgment."-Security Trust Co. v. Jaqua “Scintilla."-Cleveland-Akron Bag Co. v. Jaite

(Ind.) 148 N. E. 148; Woodward v. Killen (Ohio) 148 N. E. 82. (Ind.) 148 N. E. 195; Cherry v. Cherry | "Sentence.”—Cherry v. Cherry (Mass.) 148 N. (Mass.) 148 N. E. 570.

E. 570, "Former common school district.”—People v. "Street."-Rippinger v. Niederst (I11.) 148 N. Madison (Ill.) 148 N. E. 247.

E. 7. “Franchise." --People v. Cermak (11.) 148 N. “Subject of action.”-Ader v. Blau (N. Y.) 148 E. 382.

N. E. 771. "Free schools."-Segar v. Board of Education “Tender.”-Mondello v. Hanover Trust Co.

of School Dist. of City of Rockford (Ill.) (Mass.) 148 N. E. 136. 148 N. E. 289.

“Testamentary capacity.”-Buerger v. Buerger "Going value."--City of Cincinnati v. Public Utilities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. E. 817. "Theft.”--Royal Ins. Co. v. Jack (Ohio) 148

(Ill.) 148 N. E. 274. "Gross_negligence.”—Bremer v. Lake Erie &

N. E. 923. W. R. Co. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 862. "Hedge."-Sawers Grain Co. v. Teagarden

“Transaction."-Van Meter v. Goldfarb (III.)

148 N. E. 391. (Ind. App.) 148 N. E. 205. “Heir."- Richardson v. Warfield (Mass.) 148 "Transporting.”-Berry v. State (Ind.) 148 N. N. E. 141.

E. 143. "Interested.”—People v. Mitchell (Ill.) 148 N.) “Transporting passengers for hire as a busiE. 242.

ness between fixed and regular termini."Irrevocable letter."--Lamborn National New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Deister

Park Bank of New York (N. Y.) 148 N. E. (Mass.) 148 N. E. 590. 661.

"Trust fund."-Baker v, Commissioner of Cor. Issue.”-Wyman v. Hageman (111.) 148 N. E. porations and Taxation (Mass.) 148 N. E. 852.

593. "Judgment establishing road."--State v. Board | “Undue influence.”—Cunningham v. Dorwart

of Com'rs of Dubois County (Ind.) 148 N. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 314. E. 198.

“Unknown heirs or devisees."-Mortimore v. "Judgment in civil action."—New York Cent. Bashore (Ill.) 148 N. E. 317. R. Co. v. Ayer (Mass.) 148 N. E. 567; "Unknown

"-Mortimore V. Bashore Cherry v. Cherry (Mass.) 148 N. E. 570. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 317. "Jurisdiction."-State v. Industrial Commission “Voluntary association.”—Bouchard v. First of Ohio (Ohio) 148 N. E. 100.

People's Trust (Mass.) 148 N. E. 895. "Jurisdiction of subject-matter.”—Wyman v. “Want of repair.”—Gregoire v. City of Lowell Hageman (Ill.) 148 N. E, 852.

(Mass.) 148 N. E. 376. "Larceny."-Royal Ins. Co. v. Jack (Ohio) 148 | “Wholly or partly within the state.”—People v. N. E. 923.

Werblow (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 786. “Legal relations.”—Hoagland v. Hoagland “Willful injury.”-Bremer v. Lake Erie & W. (Ohio) 148 N. E. 585.

R. Co. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 862. "Local improvement."-Village of Glencoe v.

Hurford (Ill.) 148 N. E. 69. "Mandamus." --State v. Industrial Commission

WORK AND LABOR. of Ohio (Ohio) 148 N. E. 100. "Maritime contracts.”--State v. Duffy (Ohio) ww6 (Ohio) Beneficiary of duty imposed, in148 N. E. 572.

tervening to discharge another's duty there"Mistake."-Barrell v. Britton (Mass.) 148 N. under, is entitled to compensation.-Sommers v. E. 134.

Putnam County Board of Education, 148 N. E. "Necessary parties.”—Mortimore V. Bashore

082. (Ill.) 148 N. E. 317.

em 12 (Mass.) If contract substantially per“Net value.”—City of Cincinnati v. Public Util- formed, with intention completely to perform,

ities Commission (Ohio) 148 N. E. 817. contractor may recover on quantum meruit.-“Nuisance per se.”—Thompson v. Elzy (Ind. De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456. App.) 148 N. E. 154.

Intentional departure from contract in ma"Other property.”--Banner Milling Co. v. State terial matter prevents recovery.-Id. (N. Y.) 148 N. E. 608.

Absence of finding that contractor acted in “Prescription.”-Parker v. Rosenberg (III.) 148 good faith or intended to perform held bar to N. E. 269.

recovery for work done and materials furnished.

-Id. "Presumptive evidence.”—Psaris v. Fredericks (Ohio) 148 N. E. 360.

Om 14(2) (Mass.) Contractor, if justified in “Principal.”—People v. Richie (III.) 148 N. E. abandoning contract, may recover full value of 265.

services or material supplied.-De Vito v. Uto, "Property within the commonwealth."-Baker 148 N. E. 456.

v. Commissioner of Corporations and Tax-w26 (Mass.) Burden of proving substantial ation (Mass.) 148 N. E. 593.

performance and good faith on contractor.-De “Public officers."-Gregoire v. Çity of Lowell Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456. (Mass.) 148 N. E. 378.

On 29 (1) (Mass.) Contractor entitled to re"Quasi corporation."-City of East Cleveland cover what extra work and materials were fair

v. Board of Education of School Dist. of Ily worth.-De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456.

owners.

For cases in Dec.Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
29(2) (Ind.App.) Measure of recovery, if WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.
defendant was warranted in canceling contracts
for erection and rental of advertising boards See Master and Servant, m347–419.
for plaintiff's breach. stated. Gibson Co. v.

WRIT OF ERROR.
Morton, 148 N. E. 430.
Omw29 (2) (Mass.) Measure of damages in con- See Appeal and Error.
tractor's suit on quantum meruit stated.-
De Vito v. Uto, 148 N. E. 456.

WRITS. m29(2) (N.Y.) Contractor may recover for See Attachment; Certiorari; Garnishment; work after date for completion of work, sub Habeas Corpus; Injunction; Mandamus; ject to set-off for delay.-General Supply & Process; Prohibition; Quo Warranto; ReConstruction Co. v. Goelet, 148 N. E. 778. plevin.

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »