¶1The plaintiff has called out the statement of the defendant as to a particular fact which he considers material, and hence will ask to find that fact proven. The defendant now offers to show that, in truth, the fact was not as he declared. The evidence offered goes direct to the fact itself, but is. said to be incompetent, because it falsifies what the defendant said about it. Is this a reason for withholding the truth ? No person has acquired or lost anything by the statement of the defendant— no one’s interest has been in the slightest degree affected by it. Why, then, are we to shut out Hip truth and decide upon falsehood ? We do not see. T'Ue may be asked.
1 Wright 696
Bennet v. Kesarty
Decided August 15, 1834
Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1834-08-15
Assumpsit on a building contract. Plea, non assumpsit. The plaintiff called a witness who testified, that he heard the defendant declare he had let a part of the job to another. The defendant’s counsel, on cross examination, asked the witness to state if, in fact, the job was ever let by the defendant.
Decided 1834-08-15