Cole v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1893 |
| Citation | 95 Mich. 77,54 N.W. 638 |
| Parties | COLE v. LAKE SHORE & M. S. RY. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Washtenaw county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.
Action by Sarah A. Cole against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
C. E. Weaver, (George C. Greene and O. G Getzen-Danner, of counsel.) for appellant.
A. J Sawyer, (M. J. Lehman, of counsel,) for appellee.
The liability of the defendant in this case has been determined by former adjudications of this court. Cross v. Railway Co., 69 Mich. 363, 37 N.W. Rep 361; Cole v. Railway Co., 81 Mich. 156, 45 N.W. 983. A full statement of the facts involved will there be found rendering any further statement here unnecessary. The only errors assigned relate to the admission of testimony and the charge of the court. Several of these were disposed of in the former opinion, and need not now be mentioned.
1. Plaintiff's physician had testified fully in regard to her condition, the disease from which she suffered, and its probable cause. He was then asked to state from his experience, practice, and observation what percentage of persons in her condition recovered their health. The question had a direct bearing upon the permanency of the disease claimed to have resulted from her injury, and was competent.
2. Defendant introduced a record in the United States court of the arrest and conviction of plaintiff for a violation of the pension law, she being then a pensioner. This evidence was admissible to affect her credibility as a witness. She offered no testimony explanatory of the crime. Defendant then offered to show what she testified to in regard to that charge on the examination before the United States commissioner. The testimony was properly excluded. It has even been held that it is not competent for the party calling the witness whose credit has been impeached by the record of conviction to give evidence explanatory of the conviction, and in favor of the innocence of the witness. Gardner v. Bartholomew, 40 Barb. 325. Neither did this testimony have any tendency to prove a conspiracy between plaintiff and Mr. Cross to defraud the defendant. It follows that it was not competent to cross-examine plaintiff in regard to this crime, and then to impeach her credit by showing that she had made statements contradictory to those made on such cross-examination.
3. Defendant offered testimony of a physician, who had known plaintiff for some years, that, in his opinion, she was "shamming before...
To continue reading
Request your trial