Simon Frindel, Appellant, v. Nochem Maier Schaikewitz, Respondent

Simon Frindel, Appellant, v. Nochem Maier Schaikewitz, Respondent. Loan—proof of payment—the plaintiff in rebuttal may state any admission made by the defendant in regard to the defendant’s having acquired the money alleged to home been paid. Upon the trial of an. action brought to recover for money loaned, in which the defense of payment was interposed, the defendant, upon the question of payment, testified that when he came to this country in 1889' he was at once employed at a theater, from which he received §100 about ten days after his arrival, and that from this sum he paid the plaintiff, such payment being made in the theater. The plaintiff was called in rebuttal, and denied that the defendant ever paid him, or that he paid him in the theater. He was asked by his counsel whether the defendant told him how much he earned in the theater, "but his answer to this question was excluded. Meld, that such testimony was admissible; * That as the defendant claimed to have paid the plaintiff from a sum of §100 which he had earned in the theater, the plaintiff was entitled to testify to any admissions by the defendant, if any had been made to him, tending to show that- the defendant never received the fund of §100, from which he alleged that he had ■made the payment. Appeal by the plaintiff, Simon Frindel, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 23d day of April, 1895, upon the verdict of a jury rendered after a trial at the Kings County Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 23d day of April, 1895, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. M. Ilallheimer, for the appellant. Abraham II. Sarasohn, for the respondent. [MAJORITY — Willard Bartlett, J.:] Willard Bartlett, J.: Were it not for an erroneous ruling, sustaining an objection to a question asked of the plaintiff in rebuttal, we should not interfere with the judgment in the present case. The action was brought to recover the aggregate amount of a number of loans of money, alleged to have been made chiefly in the empire of Russia, by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant denied having borrowed the money, with the exception of two items, being twenty-four dollars loaned to him for a ticket from Hamburg to New York in 1889, and twenty roubles in cash lent at the same time. As to these items the answer expressly alleged that the two said sums of money were repaid to the plaintiff by the defendant within a few weeks after his arrival in this country, in October, 1889. The pleadings thus presented a direct issue as to the payment of these two amounts. The defendant testified in his own behalf that as soon as he came to this country, in 1889, he became engaged in Poole’s Theater in Eighth street, New York, as a writer; that when he received $100 from this theater, about ten days after he came here, he repaid the plaintiff for the passage ticket and the twenty roubles by giving him thirty-five dollars. He further stated that the payment was made to the plaintiff in the theater immediately after he received the $100. The plaintiff, being called in rebuttal, positively denied having received payment. He swore that he never received any money from the defendant in any theater. The plaintiff was then asked: “ Q. Do you know how much he earned in that theater?” Tiffs question was objected to as immaterial, the objection was sustained, and tlie plaintiff excepted. The next question was: “ Q. Did he say to you how much he earned in that theater ? ” The court sustained the objection of the defendant’s counsel to this question as immaterial and not in rebuttal, and an exception was duly taken in behalf of the plaintiff. It seems to us that the learned trial court erred in excluding the testimony sought to be elicited by this last question. The plaintiff, when he testified in support of his primary case, was not called upon to go into the matter of the alleged payment at the theater in October, 1889. It became proper for him to give evidence on that subject only after the defendant had introduced proof to support his plea of payment at that time. After such proof had been laid before the jury the plaintiff, it seems to us, had a clear right to give his version of the circumstances concerning the alleged payment, and, furthermore, to testify to any admissions by the defendant, if any had been made to him, tending to show that the defendant never actually received the fund of $100 out of which he claimed to have paid his debt. The evident purpose of the question as to whether the defendant had told the plaintiff how much he earned in that theater was to show that the defendant’s own statement of his earnings there was inconsistent with his present claim that when he had been in this country only about ten days he had received from the theater as much as $100. It is impossible to say that the erroneous exclusion of such testimony was not harmful to the plaintiff. The case was one in which the evidence was very conflicting, and in which even slight circumstances, if admissible in evidence, might affect the result. But a declaration by one of the parties tending to discredit his own testimony, would not be a slight circumstance, but one of considerable significance; and the effect of the riding which we have considered was to prevent the introduction of evidence tending to establish such declarations. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. All concurred. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.