Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Volume 41

Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Volume 41

By (author) 

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 edition. Excerpt: ...else. I have thought you a different man from Cameron. I am on my way to Michigan. Yours in haste. C. W. Phillips, Delavan, "Wisconsin." The letter to which this purports to be an answer, was not offered in evidence. The admission of this letter is assigned as error. The other errors assigned are stated in the opinion. The jury found for the defendant. A motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial was made by the plaintiff, on the ground that the judge erred in his rulings during the trial, and for newly discovered evidence. The affidavits upon which the motion was founded, show that about ten days after the trial the plaintiff learned for the first time that one John L. D. Eyclesheimer, an expert in such matters, examined the mare at Fond du Lac, when she was being driven from Watertown to Oshkosh, and found that she had a bone spavin so developed that the injury which produced it must have been inflicted at least four months previously, and that Eyclesheimer would so testify on another trial of the action. The motion was denied, and judgment for the defendant was entered on the verdict. The plaintiff appealed from the judgment. C. W. Felker, for appellant, to the point that it was error to admit the defendant's testimony that the spavin could not have existed on the mare's leg when he sold her, without his knowing it, cited People v. Bowdine, 1 Denio, 281-311; Morehouse v. Mathews, 2 N. Y., 514; 6 id., 168-175. To the Finch vs. Phillips. point that it was error to admit in evidence the letter written by defendant to the plaintiff, he cited 1 Phil. Ev. (4th Am. ed.), 402, note 117; Fearing v. Kimball, 4 Allen, 125; 11 Wis., 96-105; 5 U. S. Dig. (1st series), p. 660, sec. 3598. He also contended that a new trial more

Product details

  • Paperback
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 463g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236834038
  • 9781236834034