Driver v. Hartman
| Decision Date | 06 December 1898 |
| Citation | 31 S.E. 899,96 Va. 518 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | DRIVER . v. HARTMAN. |
Appeal—Bill of Exceptions.
Assignment of error to refusal to allow witnesses to answer certain questions cannot be considered, the bills of exception not showing what was expected or proposed to be proved by the witnesses.
Error to circuit court, Rockingham county.
Action by John H. Hartman against Perry M. Driver. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
O. B. Roller, Mr. Martz, and Winfield Liggett, for plaintiff in error.
Sipe & Harris, for defendant in error.
Under the rule applicable in the consideration of this case, the verdict of the jury cannot be disturbed. Code, § 3484.
The first and second assignments of error, touching the action of the court in refusing to allow witnesses to answer certain questions, cannot be considered, because the bills of exception do not show what the defendant expected or proposed to prove by either witness. Insurance Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 26 S. E. 421.
For these reasons, the writ of error cannot be awarded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gosling v. Com.
...and evidence is excluded, the content of the excluded testimony may be included in the record by a proper proffer. Driver v. Hartman, 96 Va. 518, 520, 31 S.E. 899 (1898). Thus, whenever "a question is asked and the witness is not permitted to answer it," the proponent of the evidence must m......
-
Consumers' Ice Co v. Jennings
...cannot judge of its materiality. Insurance Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 26 S. E. 421, 36 L. R. A. 271, 64 Am. St. Rep. 715; Driver v. Hartman, 96 Va. 518, 31 S. E. 899. It appears from bill of exceptions No. 3 that the witness Montgomery, introduced on behalf of the defendant, was asked the ......
-
Brock v. Bear
...was irrelevant or immaterial. Insurance Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 26 S. E. 421, 36 L. R. A. 271, 64 Am. St. Rep. T15; Driver v. Hartman, 96 Va. 518, 31 S. E. 899; Greever v. Bank, 99 Va. 547, 39 S. E. 159. The action of the court in giving and refusing certain instructions is assigned as ......
-
Jackson v. Commonwealth
...the action of the trial court. Insurance Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 15T, 26 S. E. 421, 36 L. R. A. 271, and cases cited; Driver v. Hart-man, 96 Va. 518, 31 S. E. 899. But if the bill of exceptions had shown that the defendant expected to prove that the deceased had the general reputation o......