Lake Roland Elevated Ry. Co. v. Weir

Citations

• 86 Md. 273
• 37 A. 714
• 1897 Md. LEXIS 95

Syllabus

<p>Evidence— When Irrelevant Testimony May be Contradicted—Damage to Property by Elevated Street Railway.</p> <p>The general rule is that the introduction of irrelevant evidence by one party will not justify the introduction of similar evidence by the other. But when irrelevant evidence offered by one party has been admitted by the Court after objection thereto, then the other party is entitled to offer evidence to contradict or explain it.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injury to plaintiffs property caused by the erection of an elevated railway in the street in front of it, a witness for the plaintiff testified that, in his opinion the adjoining property had been damaged in value by the railway to a certain extent. Held, that this evidence could not be rebutted by showing that the owner of the adjoining property had released his claim for •damages against the railway company for a much smaller sum than that mentioned by the witness, because the fact that such owner was •willing to accept a certain amount in satisfaction of his claim is not •evidence as to the amount of damage caused to plaintiff’s property, •and also because the two properties being used for different purposes, •evidence as to the amount of damage caused by the railway to the ■adjoining property was irrelevant.</p>