McNeile v. Cridland

Citations

• 6 Pa. Super. 428
• 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 174

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Inadmissibility of post contractual representations in deceit.</p> <p>In an action on a contract evidence was properly rejected which was offered in support of alleged representations made by the plaintiff’s agent after the contract in controversy had been entered into; such representations even if false would not legitimately tend to establish the defense, which was deceit.</p> <p>Appeals — Application for new trial — After-discovered testimony — Discretion of court.</p> <p>Applications for new trial based on allegations of after-discovered testimony are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and only in clear cases of abuse of discretion, if ever, is the refusal of the application assignable for error.</p> <p>Charge of court — Comments on testimony — Effect of charge as a whole.</p> <p>The charge oí the court is not open to exception when the effect of its comments, taken as a whole, was to lead the jury to the conclusion, not that the plaintiff’s version of a conversation was the more probable, but that his version did not differ, in legal effect, upon the question at issue, from that of the defendant.</p> <p>It is not error for the trial judge to comment on the testimony of a witness and to call attention to its inherent probability or improbability, provided he does it fairly, and leaves the question of his credibility to the jury.</p> <p>Where particular instructions are not asked for, and the complaint is that the charge was inadequate or one-sided, the court will be reviewed on the general effect of the charge and not upon sentences or paragraphs disconnected from the context which qualifies and explains them ; if, as a whole, the charge was calculated to mislead, there is error in the record; if not, there is none.</p>