Cravens v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 18 April 1892
• Citation: 30 P. 61,17 Colo. 419
• Parties: CRAVENS v. BENNETT.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

30 P. 61

17 Colo. 419

CRAVENS v. BENNETT.

Supreme Court of Colorado

April 18, 1892

Error to district court, Garfield county.

Action of unlawful detainer by Elisha B. Cravens against George Bennett. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A defendant testifying as a witness in his own behalf is subject to cross-examination as to previous declarations contrary to his testimony as given, the same as any other witness; and this notwithstanding his supposed declarations might have been shown as a part of the plaintiff's case in chief.

2. When an objection to material evidence is improperly sustained and the result of the trial is adverse to the party against whom the ruling is made, the ruling may be made the ground for a new trial, unless there is something in the record showing that the sustaining of the objection to the question was a harmless error.

Joseph W. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

M J. Bartley, for defendant in error.

ELLIOTT J.

The plaintiff below, in his complaint, having pleaded actual and peaceable possession of the premises in himself, alleged that defendant, by plaintiff's permission, had entered upon said premises to occupy the same temporarily as a tenant or licensee of plaintiff, agreeing to move off whenever requested so to do by plaintiff; and, further, that defendant, though duly notified to vacate and deliver possession of said premises, had refused so to do. The defendant, by his answer, admitted his entry upon a portion of the premises described in the complaint, but denied that he entered as the tenant or licensee of plaintiff. On the contrary, he claimed the right to occupy and hold the same through and by another source of title. The defendant, being upon the stand as a witness in his own behalf, gave testimony tending to show his right to the premises in support of his answer. On cross-examination, defendant was interrogated by plaintiff's counsel as follows: 'Didn't you state to H. R. Kamm, in his store in this city, during the month of January, 1885, that Cravens was making a bluff, and trying to drive you off of that land, and that you didn't claim that ground, and didn't intend to, but you didn't intend to be driven off of it by Cravens; that all you wanted was the place where your mill stood, and you were not ready to move from there yet, and he couldn't make you,--or words to that effect?' To this question a...