206 A.D. 629 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1923
Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. It was error to permit defendant to testify to the conversation he had with the deceased partner Herschman. (Manning v. Schmitt, 4 App. Div. 131.) It related to the breach itself and, incidentally, to the market value of the silk, and was, therefore, serious in its effect upon the result. The fact that the plaintiff Rader is claimed to have been present does not affect the intent of the statute,
See Civ. Prac. Act. § 347; formerly Code Civ. Proc. § 829,—[Rep.