Cook v. Denike

• Decision Date: 26 June 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 6225.)
• Citation: 216 S.W. 437
• Parties: COOK et al. v. DENIKE et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

216 S.W. 437

COOK et al. v. DENIKE et al.

(No. 6225.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 26, 1919.

On Motion for Rehearing November 26, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Nueces County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.

Suit by R. O. Cook, Sr., and others against Mrs. Eva Noessel Denike and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Hicks, Phelps, Dickson & Bobbitt, of San Antonio, Dougherty & Dougherty and H. S. Bonham, all of Beeville, and G. R. Scott, Boone & Pope, of Corpus Christi, for appellants.

Kleberg, Stayton & North and Pope & Sutherland, all of Corpus Christi, for appellees.

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit instituted by appellants against appellees in the county court of Nueces county to set aside the probate of the will of Mary C. Russell, deceased, on the ground of mental incapacity to execute a will, and of undue influence and fraud being used by appellees to procure the making of the will. The county court denied the relief sought, and the cause was appealed to the district court, where it was tried by jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellees.

There are over 400 printed pages in the brief of appellants, nearly 300 pages of which consist of testimony copied from the statement of facts. There is evidence which sustains the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court; and, unless there be some error of law which may have affected the verdict, it must be affirmed.

The first assignment of error assails the action of the court in permitting the depositions of Dr. Harry G. Heaney to be read to the jury by appellees. The depositions were regularly and properly taken, the only objection to the depositions by appellants being "that on the day this cause was called for trial plaintiffs announced ready for trial on the assurance of defendants that said Dr. Harry. G. Heaney would be available as a witness, should plaintiffs desire to use him; that said witness was then and there under process caused to be issued and served by plaintiffs, but was not in attendance on court. And upon such assurance by defendants to plaintiffs that said witness would be available plaintiffs announced ready for trial. That when the witness, Edward R. Kleberg, of counsel for defendants, was on the stand, just previous to the offer of defendants to read said depositions of Dr. Harry G. Heaney, said Kleberg was questioned by defendants with reference to the testimony of said Dr. Harry G. Heaney at the trial of this cause in the county court. Plaintiffs objected to such testimony, and on the assurance of defendants' counsel that Dr. Harry G. Heaney would testify in this cause the court overruled plaintiffs' objections, and admitted in evidence certain portions of the testimony of Dr. Harry G. Heaney, given in the court and proven up by the said Edward R. Kleberg; that the said Dr. Harry G. Heaney was under process, and subject to the order of the court and was, in effect, present in court, and is available as a witness, and that to permit said deposition to be read in evidence was, in effect, a denial of the right of cross-examination, and would deprive plaintiffs of the right to cross-examine said witness and of the cross-examination of said witness." The bill of exceptions is obscure, and leaves it doubtful whether the objection was to depositions or to the hearsay evidence of what Kleberg swore as to what Dr. Heaney testified in the county court. It will be assumed, however, that the objections were urged to the use of the depositions of Heaney, on the ground, first, that defendants assured plaintiffs that Heaney would be available if plaintiffs desired to use him, and on that assurance they had announced ready.

Of course that did not constitute a reasonable objection to the depositions. If appellants were enticed into an announcement of ready for trial, it might, under certain circumstances, have formed a basis for a withdrawal of the case from the jury, but could not be an objection to the depositions. It is not pretended that the witness was not present and could not have been used by appellants, but, on the other hand, it is stated by appellants in their bill of exceptions that Dr. Heaney "was under process and subject to the order of the court, and was, in effect, present in court and available as a witness."

The second objection was that the court permitted certain portions of the testimony of Dr. Harry G. Heaney to be used in evidence. This was no objection to the legality of the depositions offered in evidence.

The true grounds for objection to the depositions, that are merely hinted at in the bill of exceptions, are that appellants desired that the witness should be placed on the stand by appellees so that appellants could subject him to another cross-examination in addition to one to which he had been subjected when the depositions were taken. Appellants admit that the witness was available. and if they desired his presence on the stand they had the full legal right to place him there. Under the terms of the statute, either party had the right to use the depositions, whether the presence of the witness was obtainable at the trial or not. Article 3675, Rev. Stats. And no tenable objection was urged to the use of the depositions.

When the depositions had been properly taken appellees had the right to use them, without the condition being attached to their use of placing the witness on the stand, and in that way open up an opportunity to appellants to cross-examine him. Appellees were under no obligation to put a witness on the stand in order that appellants might cross-examine him. They were defending their entrenchments against the attacks of their adversaries, and could not be compelled to make a breach therein in order that appellants might find a place of attack. No authority has been or can be offered for such a proposition. If appellees inveigled appellants into a trial on the representation that they would place Dr. Heaney on the stand in order that appellants might cross-examine, let the attack be made on that line, if any, and not on the ground that their opponents should open up avenues of attack for them. Appellees had the right to use the depositions even though the witness was in court, and were not compelled to call him to the stand. Holt v. Guerguin, 106 Tex. 185, 163 S. W. 10, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1136. The matter was one peculiarly within the discretion of the trial judge, and no abuse of such discretion is shown. Schmick v. Noel, 64 Tex. 406; O'Connor v. Andrews, 81 Tex. 28, 16 S. W. 628.

Through the second assignment of error appellants claim that the court refused to permit them to call Dr. Heaney to the stand for the purpose of a cross-examination, but the record fails to sustain their contention. Dr. Heaney was never offered as a witness for cross-examination or any other purpose. The bill of exceptions shows that appellants "notified the court and counsel for defendants that they insisted upon, and would insist upon, their right to cross-examine said witness, Dr. Harry G. Heaney, in person, and to have the said Dr. Harry G. Heaney called to the witness stand for such cross-examination before defendants concluded the introduction of their evidence in chief." The threat was never carried into execution, nor was any attempt made to execute it. The assignment of error is overruled.

The third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth assignments of error assail the action of the court in permitting the use in evidence of the written testimony used in the probate of the will in the county court. It is provided in article 3273, Revised Statutes, that:

"All testimony taken in open court upon the hearing of an application to probate a will shall be committed to writing at the time it is taken, and subscribed in open court by the witness or witnesses, and filed by the clerk."

Then it is provided in article 3275:

"A certified copy of such record of testimony may be read in evidence on the trial of the same matter in any other court when taken there by appeal or otherwise."

In the case of Beeks v. Odom, 70...