Tice v. Dromgoole

Headnote

fflndence — a pan'ty cannot impeach his own witness by proving contradictory statements made by him.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

. This action was brought for the recovery of damages for a libel, alleged to have been published by defendants concerning the plaintiff. The charge was, in substance, that the plaintiff, who was a coroner of Westchester county, was drunk while holding an inquest on one Banks who had committed suicide.

The court at General Term said: “ Upon the trial, one George

Carpenter was called as a witness for tbe defendants, wbo testified that he considered the plaintiff a sober man during the inquest. Tbe defendant then put to tbe witness tbis question: Did you not tell Albert Sarles that be was drunk there? The question was objected to, admitted, and the plaintiff excepted. Tbe witness said: ‘ I won’t deny but what I might have said in a humorous way that the coroner was drunk.’ Tbe question was an improper one. A party is not permitted to impeach his own witness. He- may show be is mistaken and contradict him as to the particular fact which be testifies to be true. (Thompson v. Blanchard, 4 N. Y., 303 ; People v. Safford, 5 Denio, 112 ; Sanchez v. The People, 22 N. Y., 147 ; Polloeh v. Polloeh, 71 id.-, 138.), The party asserts or admits the credibility of the witness he puts upon the stand.”