# Ryan v. . the People

> New York Court of Appeals · January 27, 1880 · 79 N.Y. 593

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9868010

## Case

- **Full name:** William Ryan, Plaintiff in Error, v. the People of the State of New York, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 27, 1880
- **Citations:** 79 N.Y. 593; 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 37
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eael
- **Judges:** Church, Folgee, Eael
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9868010

## Opinion text

Folgee and Eael, JJ.,
concurred in the result, only ; thinking that in the law of evidence of this State, it had been settled that the trial court may, in its discretion, alloAV the questions put to Ford and Butler on cross-examination and discussed by the chief judge in his opinion. See Southworth v. Bennett ( 58 N. Y., 659 ), wdiere it was said by Johnson, J., in an opinion (in MSS.) concurred in per totarn curiam: “The question put by the defendant’s counsel to the plaintiff, Avhether he Avas not then under indictment for usury, seems to have been one of those depreciatory questions which, although not relevant to the issue, a judge may, in his discretion,, allorv to be put on cross-examination.
*602 After considerable discussion in this State, the constant practice at Circuit and the decisions in Brandon v. People ( 42 N. Y., 265 ); People v. Gay (7 id., 378 ), and Lipe v. Eisenlord (32 id., 229), seem to leave no doubt that the allowance of such questions rests in the discretion of the court.” Judgment affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9868010. Public record. Not legal advice.