reason given rule in New York

1875(Kimball v. Davis, 19 Wend., 437 .) The reason given for this requirement is this, that unless it is done, it is impossible to say that the witness has told the whole truth.

1875The general cross-interrogatory must be answered as well as the particular ones, and if it is not put and answered the deposition taken on commission will, in general, be suppressed. ( Kimball v. Davis, 19 Wend., 437 .) The reason given for this requirement is this, that unless it is done, it is impossible to say that the witness has told the whole truth.

1875(S. C. in error, 25 Wend., 259, 268 .) In the case before us, as appears from the printed book, there were sixteen cross-interrogatories, the sixteenth being the general one.

1875(S.C. in error, 25 Wend., 259, 268 .) In the case before us, as appears from the printed book, there were sixteen cross-interrogatories, the sixteenth being the general one.

2002Defense counsel failed to do so as to the subject juror and, therefore, there is no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that the reason given for the challenge was pretextual (see People v Chapman, supra).

1963People v. Downing, 14 A D 2d 822, 823.) The reason given by defense counsel for asking such transfer is that ‘ ‘ Because of the possibility of collusion and a conflict of interest which may result out of my defending any actions in this City Court, it has been decided by all concerned that I, John A. Longeretta defend no actions in City Court where the prosecutor would be an Assistant Corporation Counsel. ’ ’ Defendant’s counsel contends that because of this “ the defendant herein would be denied his right to have counsel of his own choosing defending him in the criminal matters hereinabove me

1963People v. Downing, 14 A D 2d 822, 823.) The reason given by defense counsel for asking such transfer is that ‘ ‘ Because of the possibility of collusion and a conflict of interest which may result out of my defending any actions in this City Court, it has been decided by all concerned that I, John A. Longeretta defend no actions in City Court where the prosecutor would be an Assistant Corporation Counsel. ’ ’ Defendant’s counsel contends that because of this “ the defendant herein would be denied his right to have counsel of his own choosing defending him in the criminal matters hereinabove me

1931(Andrews v. Durant, 18 N. Y. 496 ; McCormick v. Penn.

1901Co., 149 N. Y. 393, 399 .) The reason given for the rule in the earlier case cited is, that if the court upon the trial should exclude the evidence, the party offering it could, by his exception, have the ruling reviewed, and he would also have the opportunity to supply the defect by other proof.

1880And to the same effect are the cases of Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield ( 1 Sandf. 416 ; affirmed 3 N. Y. 243 ), and Bridenbecker v. Lowell ( 32 Barb. 9 ).

1880And to the same effect are the cases of Cowperthwaite v. Sheffield ( 1 Sandf. 416 ; affirmed 3 N. Y. 243 ), and Bridenbecker v. Lowell ( 32 Barb. 9 ).

1871Blackbuex, J., at the close of his opinion, lays down the rule as follows: “ The principle seems to us to be, that in contracts in which the performance depends on the continued existence of a given person or thing, a condition is implied that the impossibility of performance, arising from the perishing of the person or thing, shall excuse the performance.” And the reason given for the rule is, “ because from the nature of the contract, it is apparent that the parties contracted on the basis of the continued existence of the particular person or thing.” In School District, No. 1 v. Dauchy ( 25