Beecker & Beecker v. Vrooman
13 Johns. 302
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1816
Check Treatment
Yak Ness, J.,

delivered the opinión' of the court. The defence, offered in th.e court below Wgs improperly excluded.. The defendant below apprised the plaintiff of-his intention to rely for his. defence,, at the trial,'upon, the ffaudy and the es— tablished rulé now appears to be,, that, in cases-like the present, fraud may be givep in evidencé as. a defence, and will be an answer to the whole demand, or in abatement of the damagés, ac- . cording to the circumstances of the case./ This is the true) aw *303well as a salutary rule, and well calculated to do final and compíete justice between the parties, most expeditiously and least expensively. (Basten v. Butten, 7 East, 480. n. Lewis v. Casgrave, 2 Taunt. 2. Fisher v. Samuda and another, 1 Camp. N. P. 190. Runyan v. Nichols, 11 Johns. Rep. 548.) The judgment, must, therefore, be reversed, and a venire de novo issued in the court below. ' ' ' <

Judgment below reversed.,