Coles v. McNamara

• Decision Date: 01 December 1925
• Docket Number: 19549.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: COLES v. McNAMARA et al.

241 P. 1

136 Wash. 624

COLES v. McNAMARA et al.

No. 19549.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 1, 1925

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Paul, Judge.

Action by Harrison Coles against Thomas F. McNamara and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

H. E. Foster, of Seattle, for appellant.

Attwood A. Kirby and John F. Dore, both of Seattle, for respondents.

HOLCOMB J.

On remand of this case for retrial, as directed on a former appeal in Coles v. McNamara, 131 Wash. 377, 230 P 430, the retrial resulted in a verdict of the jury in favor of all the defendants, from judgment on which this appeal comes.

The pleadings and issues were stated on the former appeal, supra. On this appeal appellant assigns as errors: (1) Errors of law occurring upon the trial; (2) the court erred in charging the jury and in refusing to charge as requested; (3) the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence and against law. These alleged errors are much too indefinite to comply with rule 8 of this court, which requires tht----

'Each error relied on shall be clearly pointed out and separately discussed, provided, that several assignments presenting the same general questions may be discussed together.'

Many things are alluded to in the brief of appellant as to which it is impossible to discern whether they are referred to as grounds of error or merely arguendo.

The errors which seem to be relied upon, and especially as argued at the oral hearing, will be referred to in their order.

The first is that Alvin Coles, brother of appellant, and a witness in his behalf, was required to answer on cross-examination that he heard respondent McNamara say, when the difficulty was happening between McNamara and appellant and his brother, 'I want you fellows.' He had already testified on direct examination that----

'He (McNamara) did not say we were under arrest, but said, 'Come on."

On cross-examination the question was asked:

'You knew when he said 'I want you fellows' he was arresting you, did you not?' An objection to this question being overruled, the witness answered:

'I did not know he was an officer. He pulled out a badge and flashed it, and put it back in his pocket.'

It is apparent that the cross-question was elicited by the answer of the witness on direct examination, and its impropriety is not at all apparent.

It is next argued that, following the admission by the same witness, Alvin Coles, that he had pleaded guilty of being drunk and disorderly on the day following his arrest, the court erred in refusing an opportunity to explain why he pleaded guilty. Counsel for appellant offered to show that an attorney had been furnished appellant and his brother, who had solicited employment; that the attorney had advised him to plead guilty; and that his lawyer paid the fine. In ruling upon the matter, the trial court said that he...