77 N.Y. 178 | NY | 1879
The appellant objects that the assignment of the cause of action having been made directly to the plaintiff by her husband, is void.
The rights of creditors are not in question, and we think the court below properly overruled the objection. (Rawson v. Penn.R.R. Co.,
In Reynolds v. Robinson (
The defendant requested the court to charge, that "if the jury believe the plaintiff's assignor has willfully testified falsely in any particular he is unworthy of credit." In responding to this request the court charged: "If there is any testimony in any case between parties that is undisputed, not contradicted, for example written testimony, it is always entitled to credit, although if the party does willfully state falsely, if it is important to the case, it destroys his credit." The defendant excepted to this qualification.
I think it quite unnecessary to consider this exception, for it seems wholly irrelevant to the case. Our attention has not been called to any evidence which would justify the jury in finding the state of facts assumed by the request, and I have not been able to find any. To submit a fact destitute *182 of evidence, as one which may nevertheless be found by a jury would of itself constitute error. But if it were otherwise the charge as made was at least as favorable to the defendant as he could properly ask.
Unimportant evidence cannot affect the result of a case, and however objectionable it may be in morals, intentionally to waiver in the least degree from the truth, even in regard to non-essentials, there is no rule of law which subjects the offender to the pains and penalties of perjury. For the same reason the judge was right in declining to charge in the manner proposed by defendant's counsel, for that involved immaterial, as well as material matter.
The remaining points made by the learned counsel for the appellant were for the consideration of the jury, and the Special and General Terms of the Superior Court, where they were doubtless presented, but they indicate no error which this court can review.
The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed.
All concur, except RAPALLO, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.