book given to Josephine Cardinal, if any, by the deceased, and exhibited by her to the witness O’Connor, is not the same one produced in court,- in which the balance of the deposits named are the subject of controversy between the parties. The defendant Cardinal claims, on the other hand, that the bank book produced was the one that was in the tin box, and that it was the only one there, and that it is the same one given to her and produced in evidence upon the trial, and that the witness O’Connor is mistaken as to the entries he testified to as having seen in the book exhibited to him. The referee found that the said John O’Connor, being the owner of a deposit of money amounting to $310 in the Ogdensburgh Bank, of Ogdensburgh, and having in his possession the bank book issued to him by said bank, did then and there give, transfer, and deliver said bank book to the defendant Josephine Cardinal, with the intent to give, transfer, and deliver to her the money so on deposit, and with the intention of vesting the title to the same in her, and as conclusion of law he finds that by the gift, delivery, and transfer made to the said Josephine Cardinal she became vested with the title to the sum of $310 standing in the name of John O’Connor, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs. From the judgment entered upon the report of the referee, the plaintiffs appeal to this court.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and HERRICK*, MERWIN, SMITH, and KELLOGG-, JJ.Charles McC. Myers (D. B. Lucey, of counsel), for appellants.
Geo-. E. Van Kennen, for respondent.
The defendant Cardinal’s claim to the money in question rests upon an alleged transaction between herself and the deceased, O’Connor. That transaction consisted in ;the giving of a bank book kept in a tin box. In testifying that she had; seen the bank book exhibited to her in such tin box, and that it was the only one in the box, she indirectly testified that that was the bank book given to her by the deceased. She. could not testify to that directly, and cannot be permitted to do so indirectly. Grey v. Grey, 47 N. Y. 552 . It was, in effect, testimony concerning the alleged transaction between herself and the .deceased, and consequently obnoxious to section 829 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Gregory v. Fichtner (Com. Pl.) 14 N. Y. Supp. 891 ; Viall v. Leavens, 39 Hun, 291 . The evidence is material, the error in receiving it cannot be disregarded, and the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed, referee discharged, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. All concur, except SMITH, J., dissenting.