
    Mary A. Farrell vs. City of Boston.
    Suffolk.
    March 22, 1894.
    March 23, 1894.
    Present: Holmes, Knowlton, Morton, Lathrop, & Barker, JJ.
    
      Evidence — Correction on Re-examination of Mistake made by Witness on Cross-examination.
    
    It is competent to show, on re-examination of a witness, that a discrediting admission made by him on cross-examination was made by mistake.
    Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff, on the evening of December 6, 1890, by an alleged defect in Prentiss Street, in the defendant city.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Maynard, J., the plaintiff’s evidence tended to show an accumulation of ice and snow on the street in question, which was a defect, and in no way protected by any sand, ashes, or other substance.
    The defendant called as a witness one Kanze, who testified, in his direct examination, that on. December 6, 1890, at six o’clock in the evening, there was a small coating of ice over the sidewalk, very thin at the place where the defect was alleged to exist, and he put some sifted ashes on it. On cross-examination, he was asked when it was, after December 6, 1890, that he was first asked the question as to what the condition of the sidewalk was on that day, and he answered, “To the best of my recollection, I think it was either the 29th or 31st of May, 1893,” the date upon which he was called as a witness at a previous trial of this case.
    In redirect examination of Kanze, the counsel for the defendant asked the following question : “ Let me refresh your recollection whether or not Mr. Devitt came to see you and had some talk with you?” To which the witness answered, “I think Mr. Devitt did come to see me, I am not positive.” He was then asked, “ You don’t remember the date of that?” and answered, “ No.” The following question was then put to him: “ Whether or not you did not, somewhere about the 12th of January, 1891, tell Mr. Devitt that you remembered that the sidewalk was asked that night ” (meaning the night of the accident). To this question the plaintiff objected, but the judge admitted it, and the witness answered, “ By you refreshing my memory, I believe I did ”; and the plaintiff excepted.
    The jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      E. Greenhood, for the plaintiff.
    
      S. H. Hudson, for the defendant, was not called upon.
   Holmes, J.

The question put on cross-examination obviously was put for the purpose of discrediting the witness’s testimony by his admission that he had not been asked, and by implication that he had not spoken, about the condition of the sidewalk, or had his attention directed to it until a date long after the time in question. It was competent on re-examination to show that he was mistaken in his answer, and had spoken about it at a much earlier time. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 1 Gray, 337, 340.

Exceptions overruled.  