Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chmiel v. Yatsko

Decided: May 13, 1940.

JOHN CHMIEL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
AGNES YATSKO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District of Bergen county.

For the plaintiff-appellee, Chandless & Weller (Julius E. Kramer, of counsel).

For the defendant-appellant, C. Conrad Schneider.

Before Justices Trenchard, Case and Heher.

Trenchard

The opinion of the court was delivered by

TRENCHARD, J. This is the appeal of the defendant below from plaintiff's judgment, rendered by the District Court, sitting without a jury, for $220 which later, on a rule to show cause why the damages should not be reduced, was reduced to $200.

The complaint alleged in the first count that "* * * the defendant willfully and maliciously fed or caused to be fed poison to the pigeons with the intent to injure the same;" and in the second count thereof that "* * * the defendant willfully and maliciously and without just cause, caused certain corn to be poisoned and fed to the pigeons of the plaintiff."

From the state of the case, as settled by the trial judge, it appeared that the court found as a matter of fact that the defendant had poisoned the pigeons in question.

We now examine the specifications of determinations with which the defendant is dissatisfied in point of law in so far as they are argued, and perceive no reason for disturbing the judgment.

We think there was no prejudicial error in the trial court's permitting the plaintiff to testify to the market value of the pigeons. The plaintiff testified that he had been raising pigeons for eighteen years and that the particular pigeons in question had been raised and trained by him, over a period of from one to five years, for racing purposes, and that he had bought and sold pigeons of that type. He stated that he was familiar with the market price of pigeons of that type and category and set a value of $25 a pair upon them.

Now the trial judge found that the witness was qualified to testify to the value of the pigeons.

Where, as here, the question is whether a witness has such special knowledge or experience as to justify him to give opinion evidence, is a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.