4 Mo.App. 271 (Mo.App. 1877), Naughton v. Stagg

Citation:4 Mo.App. 271
Opinion Judge:BAKEWELL, J.
Party Name:DANIEL NAUGHTON, Respondent, v. HENRY STAGG, Appellant.
Attorney:P. E. BLAND, for appellant: A. W. SLAYBACK, for respondent:
Case Date:June 26, 1877
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 271

4 Mo.App. 271 (Mo.App. 1877)

DANIEL NAUGHTON, Respondent,

v.

HENRY STAGG, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.

June 26, 1877

1. Where the ground of objection to evidence is not specifically urged at the trial, the matter will not be considered by the appellate court.

2. Where it does not appear from the record that exceptions were taken at the time instructions were given or refused, they will not be reviewed on appeal.

3. The testimony of experts is not admissible upon matters of judgment within the experience of ordinary jurymen.

4. It is not error to refuse to allow a witness to testify as an expert where it is not shown that his experience or business is such as to give him a peculiar or special knowledge of the matters as to which his testimony is offered.

5. Where it is not shown that the discretion of the trial court in limiting the time of counsel in addressing the jury was abused, this action of the court will not be reviewed on appeal.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

P. E. BLAND, for appellant: It was error, and an abuse of the discretion of the court, to limit counsel in the argument to thirty minutes.-- The State v. Linney, 52 Mo. 42; Trice v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. Co., 35 Mo. 216; The State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257, Scott dissenting, p. 260.

A. W. SLAYBACK, for respondent: Only those errors to which the attention of the court below was called in the motion for new trial will be reviewed by an appellate court.-- Lancaster, Admr., etc., v. Washington Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 121; Vivion v. Lafayette County, 13 Mo. 453. Instructions will not be reviewed when no exceptions are taken below.-- Mattock v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105; Wash v. Allen, 50 Mo. 181; Gordon v. Gordon, 13 Mo. 215; Hirt v. Hahn, 61 Mo. 496.

OPINION

BAKEWELL, J.

This is a suit on a mechanic's lien. The first count in the petition is for work and material furnished on a building contract for the erection of a dwelling-house, and the second count is for extra work. For work under the contract, and changes made by agreement during the progress of the building, plaintiff demands a balance, said to be due, of $2,319.17; and under the second count, for extra work and materials, he asks judgment for $195. The answer admits the contract; denies that the lien was filed in time; denies that defendant is bound by agreement to pay any thing for the changes from the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP