Opinion
January, 1927.
Judgment and order reversed upon the facts, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. At the close of the cross-examination of one of defendant's witnesses, a woman, apparently disinterested, the plaintiff's attorney said: "I am going to ask your Honor to take judicial notice of the fact that this accident happened, not on Sunday, and that these things couldn't have happened — that it happened on Saturday, which was the 7th, and she could not have left Hartford on a Sunday; and we are going to ask you to take such action as those facts warrant." To this statement defendant's attorney objected, and moved for a mistrial. The court thereupon said — apparently to plaintiff's attorney: "You call my attention to it on the conclusion of the trial." When another of defendant's witnesses was on the stand, the court intervened and cross-examined the witness at some length. Defendant's attorney objected to some of the questions asked by the court, and also to the cross-examination by the court. The court said: "Objection overruled. What do you think I am here for? Don't you think I am here to assist the jury in learning the facts of the case and eliciting from the witnesses the truth, if it is in them?" We are of opinion that these with other incidents which occurred during the trial prevented the defendant from obtaining a fair trial. The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, and a new trial granted, in the interests of justice. Kelly, P.J., Jaycox, Manning, Kapper and Lazansky, JJ., concur.