Dalman v. Koning
| Decision Date | 25 June 1884 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | DALMAN v. KONING. |
Error to Allegan.
N.A. Earle and P.A. Latta, for plaintiff.
Padgham & Padgham, for defendant.
Plaintiff as father of Johannah Dalman, a minor, sued defendant for debauching his daughter. She testified to a case involving force, but not to such an extent as to make out rape. Defendant denied any intercourse whatever, so that the matter rested on her testimony, as contradicted by his, with the usual amount of circumstantial evidence. Plaintiff recovered a verdict.
Several assignments of error relate to admission or exclusion of testimony. A question put to Mrs. Dalman, as to her knowledge of the time when her daughter went to see a physician brought out no facts whatever of any account. The question was not objectionable, and the answer was entirely immaterial, and in no way prejudicial.
Defendant had made an affidavit for continuance in which he set out that his son, who was absent, was a very material witness on the principal issue, and stated what he could prove by him. Plaintiff's counsel admitted that if present he would swear as stated, and the case was brought on for hearing. While defendant was on the stand as a witness, reference being had to the trial of a libel suit in which the same facts were in issue as in this cause, he was asked on cross-examination whether his son was present at that trial, and he said he was. He was then asked whether the son was sworn as a witness, and he said he was not. No objection was made to answering these questions, but subsequently a motion was made to strike out the testimony, and it was denied. We think this was legitimate cross-examination, and it was not improper to consider it with reference to defendant's producing a witness whom, although known, he had failed to use before. It did not go beyond legitimate latitude in cross-examination, and, having been given without demur, it was proper to retain it.
Johannah had been asked on cross-examination whether, at a time named she and some other persons named did not go out near the railroad, and answered in the negative. One of them was asked a question concerning the same fact, to contradict her. The plaintiff objected, unless they proposed to show improper conduct, and offered to allow any testimony of improprieties to be received which they chose to put in, but objected to immaterial testimony. This objection was properly sustained as a witness cannot be impeached by contradiction on matters not pertinent to the issue. The same rule applies to rejected offers to contradict her concerning the reason of her leaving Mr. Bixby's, where she had been employed. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial