Ford v. Cheever
| Decision Date | 28 June 1897 |
| Citation | 71 N.W. 837,113 Mich. 440 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | FORD v. CHEEVER. |
Error to circuit court, Lenawee county; Victor H. Lane, Judge.
Action by Emma Ford against Jacob Cheever to recover damages under the civil damage law for injury to plaintiff's means of support. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Walter C. Burridge and Watts, Bean & Smith, for appellant.
J. C Winne, for appellee.
This case has been here before, and is reported in 105 Mich. 679 63 N.W. 975. A reference to that case will show many of the questions involved here.
The first errors assigned relate to the voir dire examination of the jurors. An examination of the record shows that, while the trial judge sustained the objection to some of the questions put to the jurors, he also gave counsel so wide a latitude in the examination of the jurors that the rights of the defendant could not have been prejudiced. The trial judge must be allowed to place some limit upon the extent of the examination. The jurors to whom the questions were put were excused peremptorily by the defense, and, without examining other jurors, the counsel for the defendant announced themselves as satisfied with the jury. It is also said that it was error to admit the deposition of Orrin T. Lane. It is sufficient to say that this objection was disposed of when the case was here before, and must be treated as res judicata. It is insisted that the remark of plaintiff's counsel to John Lucas, who had just sworn he was a bartender "You are ashamed of it, are you?" is prejudicial error. The record shows the court at once stated that the objectionable remark ought not to have been made. If a case is to be reversed every time counsel, in the heat of a trial puts an objectionable question, even though the court properly and promptly corrects him, there will be no end of litigation. Error is also assigned to remarks made by counsel in his argument to the jury. Some of these remarks were objectionable, and the trial judge promptly so determined and so informed the counsel. What we have just said as to the remark made by counsel to the witness will apply to these remarks.
It is claimed there is no substantial evidence that appellant furnished defendant's husband with liquor during the time mentioned in her bill of particulars. In view of the testimony of Mr. Lane that he had often see Ford drunk, and had drunk often...
To continue reading
Request your trial