Henry Tozer, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant

Henry Tozer, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant. (Submitted April 19, 1887, decided April 26 1887) A general objection to evidence is sufficient where the evidence is in its nature inadmissible for any purpose. This was a motion for reargument, made upon the- ground that there was no sufficient objection and exception to the evidence, the reception of which was held error (ante, p. 617.) The following is the mem. of decision • “In deciding upon the appeal in this case it did not escape our attention that the objections to the admission of the evidence which we held to be incompetent, were general. That point was discussed m consultation, but we consider that the evidence was m its nature inadmissible, as it related to speculative and conjectural possible future consequences which might be apprehended from the injury, and how long after the injury such consequences might be developed. The course of the examination shows that the ground of the objections could not have been misunderstood, and if it had been specified the objections could not have been obviated. “ Motion denied, with costs.” Myron H. Peck, Jr., for motion. George C. Greene opposed. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam mem.] Per Curiam mem. for denia of motion. All concur. Motion denied.