19 Wend. 483 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1838)
A party’s own declarations and admissions regarding a material fact are admissible as evidence against them, even if those statements contradict the testimony of another witness called by that party.
Summary
Wright sued Wilcox for fraud, alleging that Wilcox, acting as Wright’s agent, misrepresented the sale price of horses to induce Wright to relinquish his claims. The court addressed the admissibility of Wilcox’s statements as evidence. The court held that the defendant’s declarations about material facts were admissible, even if they contradicted another witness presented by the plaintiff. The court emphasized that a party’s own admissions are always competent evidence against them. The court also clarified the judge has discretion over recalling witnesses and that its decisions will generally not be reviewed.
Facts
Wright entrusted Wilcox with selling horses on his behalf.
Wright alleged that Wilcox fraudulently misrepresented the sale prices to induce Wright to relinquish his claims to the full value of the horses.
Wright claimed that Wilcox converted the horses to his own use or sold them for higher prices than reported.
Procedural History
Wright sued Wilcox in the trial court.
The jury found in favor of Wright.
Wilcox appealed, alleging errors in the admission of evidence.
The Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the defendant’s declarations as evidence, even if they contradicted the testimony of another witness called by the plaintiff.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a witness to be recalled to testify again regarding a previously addressed fact.
Holding
Yes, because the declarations and admissions of a party to the record, of any fact material to the issue, are always competent evidence against him.
No, because it is within the discretion of the judge at the trial, to permit a witness to be recalled to a fact in respect to which he had before testified, and to explain, qualify or contradict his former statements, and the discrepancy in the statements only affects his credibility.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that a party’s own statements are inherently relevant and admissible against them. “The declarations and admissions of a party to the record, of any fact material to the issue, are always competent evidence against him.”
The court distinguished this from impeaching one’s own witness with general evidence of untruthfulness. A party can offer independent evidence to contradict specific testimony from their own witness.
The court also held that the decision to allow a witness to be recalled for further examination lies within the trial judge’s discretion, and appellate courts should not interfere with such decisions unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
The court said that discrepancies in a witness’s statements only affect their credibility, which is a matter for the jury to consider.