Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

A

DIGEST

[ocr errors]

OF NEW YORK STATUTES AND REPORTS,,

FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1860.

BY

BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT,

AND

AUSTIN ABBOTT.

COMPRISING

THE ADJUDICATIONS OF ALL THE COURTS OF THE STATE,

PRESENTED IN THE REPORTS BY

с

ABBOTT, ANTHON, BARBOUR, BOSWORTH, BRADFORD, CAINES, CLARKE, COLEMAN,
COMSTOCK, COWEN, DENIO, DUER, EDWARDS, HALL, HILL, HILTON, HOFFMAN,
HOPKINS, HOWARD, JOHNSON, KERNAN, PAIGE, PARKER, SANDFORD,
SELDEN, E. D. SMITH, E. P. SMITH, AND WENDELL;

AND

TOGETHER WITH

IN THE CHANCERY SENTINEL, THE CITY HALL RECORDER, THE CODE REPORTS AND REPORTER, HILL & DENIO'S
SUPPLEMENT, HOWARD'S COURT OF APPEALS CASES, LIVINGSTON'S JUDICIAL OPINIONS,

THE NEW YORK LEGAL OBSERVER, WHEELER'S CRIMINAL CASES, ETC.

[ocr errors]

PRECEDED BY

THE STATUTES,

As embodied in the Revised Laws of 1818, the Revised Statutes, and the general Acts passed since 1829.

A TABLE OF CASES CRITICISED.

THIRD EDITION: REVISED AND CORRECTED.

VOL. III.

1864.

NEW YORK:

JOHN S. VOORHIES, LAW BOOKSELLER AND PUBLISHER.

[ocr errors]

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty,

By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT.
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three,
By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, By BENJAMIN VAUGHAN ABBOTT and AUSTIN ABBOTT,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

APR 14 1942

Chullings Choodung

BENNIE, SHEA & LINDSAY,
STEREOTYPERS AND ELECTROTYPERS,

81, 83, and 85 Centre-street,
NEW YORK.

BAKER & GODWIN, PRINTERS, Tribune Building, cor. Spruce & Nassan stresta, NEW YORK

DIGEST

OF

NEW YORK STATUTES AND REPORTS.

FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1860.

[Statutes are distinguished by the use of a smaller type.

EXAMINATION (of Assignor, and of
Parties)

WITNESS.

EXCEPTIONS (and Bill of).

I. WHAT MAY BE REVIEWED BY EXCEPTIONS.
II. HOW EXCEPTIONS ARE TO BE TAKEN.
III. OF THE BILL, AND ITS SETTLEMENT.
IV. TURNING CASE INTO BILL.

V. HOW DETERMINED.

prisoner had not exhausted all his peremptory challenges when the panel was completed, the prisoner cannot afterwards avail himself of exceptions taken to the admission of such improper evidence before the triers. [4 Den., 31; 1 Id., 300.] Supreme Ct., 1851, People v. Knickerbocker, 1 Park. Cr., 302.

4. Triers. It seems, that a bill of exceptions will lie for refusing triers on challenge of jurors. People v. Rathbun, 21 Wend., 509545. Compare Exp. Vermilyea, 6 Cow., 555.

5. The rejection of evidence, which, whether in its nature competent or not, is wholly irrelevant to the issues made by the pleadings, is not a ground of exception. N. Y. Superior Ct., 1857, Purchase v. Mattison, 6 Duer, 587.

I. WHAT MAY BE REVIEWED BY EX

CEPTIONS.

6. The judge's comments on the evi

1 Challenge. If the court overrule a chal-dence are not the subject of exceptions. If lenge to the favor, when properly made, or he inadvertently misstates the facts, the counrefuse to appoint triers to pass upon it, the sel must correct him at the time; and his error may be corrected on a bill of exceptions. opinion upon the evidence cannot be reviewed And so, where the court refuses to allow com- upon exception. Supreme Ct., 1848, Nolton petent evidence to be given to the triers, or v. Moses, 3 Barb., 31. misdirects them in matters of law. [2 Rev. 7. Variance. A bill of exceptions will not Stat., 736, § 21; 21 Wend., 545; Bac. Abr., lie to review the exercise of the discretion of Juries, E. 12; 2 Tidd, 862; 4 Chit. Gen. Pr., of a judge, in disregarding a variance at the 3; 7 Cr., 297; 1 Rob., Va., 135; Steph. N. P., | trial. [4 Hill, 187; 15 Wend., 669.] Ct. of 1794.] Supreme Ct., 1845, People ». Bodine, 1 Appeals, 1848, Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co. of Den., 281. See People v. Honeyman, 3 Id., 121. | Albany, 1 N. Y. (1 Comst.), 290.

2. And such exceptions are not waived by the prisoner's not challenging the juror peremptorily. People v. Bodine, 1 Den., 281.

3. Where, on the trial of a challenge to the favor, improper evidence is received, and the triers find the juror indifferent, and he is then challenged peremptorily, and it appears the

8. A refusal to nonsuit is not a good ground of exception, when there is any evidence to submit to the jury. Supreme Ct., 1848, Chesterman v. McCostlin, 6 N. Y. Leg. Obs., 212.

9. Refusal to amend. The omission of an entire allegation offered to be proved, is not a

« ПретходнаНастави »