Fisher v. Hood
| Decision Date | 17 April 1866 |
| Citation | 14 Mich. 189 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Albert Fisher v. William Hood |
Heard April 12, 1866
Error to Wayne circuit.
There was but one error assigned. The nature of the case and the ground of the allegation of error are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Moore & Griffin, for plaintiff in error:
They cited 13 Ala. 324; 33 Me. 367; 1 Md. 1; 8 Tex. 284.
G. V. N. Lothrop, for defendant in error.
Hood sued Fisher for the seduction of Sarah Hood, his daughter, in June, 1863. Evidence was given of the offense complained of. The plaintiff also showed by her, that some years before there had been an illicit connection between the same parties. On cross-examination, she was asked whether she had not been engaged to one John Sly, which she denied. She also denied admitting to Hial Sly that she had been engaged to John Sly. Defendant Fisher then offered to show by his mother, Lydia Fisher, that in 1860 and 1861, Sarah Hood told her she was keeping company, and engaged to, John Sly, and that John Sly, in 1861, brought Sarah to witness's house. This testimony was excluded, and exception was taken to the exclusion.
We can perceive no possible ground on which such evidence was admissible. It was not relevant in any way to the issue, and whether offered for impeachment or contradiction, it was equally inadmissible, because entirely immaterial, even had a foundation been laid for asking impeaching questions.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Falkner
...to allow a witness to be contradicted on collateral questions not admissible as direct evidence. Dunn v. Dunn, 11 Mich. 284; Fisher v. Hood, 14 Mich. 189; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173; Hitchcock v. Burgett, 38 Mich. 501. 'As already stated the question whether the witness had ever been ......
-
Tamborino v. Territory of Arizona
... ... State, 29 Tex. App. 265, 15 S.W. 725; Holms v ... Anderson, 18 Barb. 420; Seller v. Jenkins, 97 ... Ind. 435; Dunn v. Dunn, 11 Mich. 284; Fisher v ... Hood, 14 Mich. 189; Leavitt v. Stansell, 44 ... Mich. 424, 6 N.W. 855; Howard v. Patrick, 43 Mich ... 121, 5 N.W. 84; Hamilton v. People, ... ...
-
Driscoll v. People
...to allow a witness to be contradicted on collateral questions not admissible as direct evidence. Dunn v. Dunn, 11 Mich. 284; Fisher v. Hood, 14 Mich. 189; Hamilton People, 29 Mich. 173; Hitchcock v. Burgelt, 38 Mich. 501. As already stated the question whether the witness had ever been arre......
-
Lewis v. People
... ... did not sit in ... this case ... Other ... cases, involving questions of evidence, are: People v ... Millspaugh 11 Mich. 278; Fisher v. Hood 14 ... Mich. 189; People v. Brewer 27 Mich. 134; People ... v. Clark 33 Mich. 112; Waston v. Watson 47 ... Mich. 427; 49 Mich. 540; 53 ... ...