31 Wis. 105 | Wis. | 1872
It appears to us tbe circuit court erred in excluding tbe evidence offered on tbe part of tbe defendant to show bow much money he bad paid out for legal services in tbe col
This testimony however was excluded, not upon the ground that the defendant was not entitled to these reasonable expenses, but for the reason that no counterclaim was set up in
AYe do not think there was any error in excluding the declarations of old Mr. Graf about the note, after the time the defendant claimed it had been surrendered to him by the plain tiff or the plaintiff’s wife. The old man was not the plaintiff’s agent or acting for him, and therefore any declarations which he might make about the note at this time ought not to affect the rights of the plaintiff. We think that evidence was en-entirely immaterial, and that it was properly ruled out But, for the error of the circuit court in excluding the testimony offered to show the expense the defendant had been put to if) collecting the note, there must be a new trial.
By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.