50 Mo. 201 (Mo. 1872), Lohart v. Buchanan

Citation:50 Mo. 201
Opinion Judge:WAGNER, Judge.
Party Name:ELIZA LOHART, Respondent, v. BENJAMIN F. BUCHANAN, Appellant.
Attorney:Bakewell & Farish, for respondent. L. M. Shreve, for appellant.
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 201

50 Mo. 201 (Mo. 1872)

ELIZA LOHART, Respondent,



Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1872

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

This was a suit for damages under the statute (Wagn. Stat. 519-521) against defendant for killing plaintiff's husband. It appears from the testimony that the latter, together with defendant and one Hanrahan--between whom and defendant there had been a difficulty of some sort--were at a country bar-room in St. Louis county, and became engaged in a quarrel, during which defendant fatally stabbed the husband of plaintiff. Further facts pertinent to the decision may be gathered from the opinion of the court.

Bakewell & Farish, for respondent.

L. M. Shreve, for appellant.


WAGNER, Judge.

This case was argued elaborately by counsel in reference to the action of the court in its rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, and also in regard to the giving and refusing of instructions. But upon examining the record we find that there are but two or three questions preserved for review here. The court gave instructions at the request of the plaintiff and defendant, and refused other instructions asked by both; but neither party made any exceptions whatever, and the appellant presents himself here in no situation to complain. So, in nearly every instance where an objection was taken to testimony, the counsel contented himself with simply making an objection, without giving any reasons why the testimony was inadmissible or incompetent, or showing on what ground the objection was predicated. This practice has always been condemned, and a pointed, specific objection cannot be assigned here for the first time, when there has been nothing but a general one in the court below. There are but few points where exceptions are sufficiently saved to be noticed. The first is where the question was put to the witness, as to whether he had any conversation with Hanrahan about the difficulty on the day when Lohart was stabbed, and what Hanrahan said about seeing the knife in the hands of the defendant. This question was objected to on the part of the plaintiff, on the ground that it was intended to impeach the testimony of Hanrahan; and before that could be done it was necessary that his attention, when he was giving in his evidence, should have been called to the time, place and circumstances under...

To continue reading