
    DUGGAN v. WILLIAMS.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 19, 1914.)
    Appeal and Error (§ 1048*) — Prejudicial Error — Improper Cross-Examination.
    It was reversible error to permit plaintiff to be asked on cross-examination, whether he had ever been arrested for smuggling, where the case resolved itself into a question of veracity between plaintiff and defendant, and, though plaintiff’s answers to such questions indicated his innocence, they were likely to have seriously prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4140-4145, 4151, 4158-4160; Dec. Dig. § 1048.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
    Action by Thomas F. Duggan against George B. Williams. From a judgment in favor of defendant, after a trial before a judge and jury, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial granted.
    Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHALAN, JJ.
    Rosenblatt & Tachna, of New York City (Max Tachna, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
    Samuel Weinberger, of New York City, for respondent.
   BIJUR, J.

This case resolved itself into a question of veracity between plaintiff and defendant. Under those circumstances, the judgment must be reversed, because the learned judge below permitted the plaintiff, over his counsel’s objection, to be cross-examined as follows: “Were you ever arrested for the crime of smuggling?” — and this was repeated in various forms in five or six questions, with answers which, while to my mind they indicate plaintiff’s entire innocence of the charge, were very likely to have seriously prejudiced plaintiff in the eyes of the jury.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.  