¶1The exceptions disclose only so much of the evidence as was deemed necessary to present the point. The parties differed as to what was said by the defendant at the time of the alleged discharge of the plaintiff from his employment. Each gave a different version of the conversation. But the defendant could not be permitted, for the purpose of corroborating his own or contradicting the plaintiff’s version, to introduce his own subsequent declarations to his wife, made when the plaintiff was not present. It was incompetent evidence. Lucas v. Trumbull, 15 Gray, 806. Exceptions overruled.
110 Mass. 144
Carrigg v. Oaks
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1872
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1872-09-15
Contract. The declaration alleged that the defendant hired the plaintiff to work in his garden for six months, and wrongfully discharged him before that term had expired. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the plaintiff testified that on a day before the end of the six months he had a conversation with the defendant, in which the defendant told him to work that day for another man; that the plaintiff refused; and that the defendant then discharged him.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1909
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1872-09-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →