Fuller v. Valiquetth
| Decision Date | 15 June 1898 |
| Citation | 70 Vt. 502,41 A. 579 |
| Parties | FULLER v. VALIQUETTH. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Rutland county court; Munson, Judge.
Case by Emfly E. Fuller against William H. Valiquette, under V. S. § 4507, for damages to plaintiff from injury received by her husband while intoxicated by liquor furnished by defendant. Verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff excepted. Affirmed.
H. W. Love and J. K. Batehelder, for plaintiff.
Butler & Moloney and F. S. Piatt for defendant.
TAFT, J. Three questions of evidence are presented by the record:
1. The testimony of the witness Bacon, to show that he shaved Fuller one evening, and that, so far as he knew, he (Fuller) was all right (meaning that be was not intoxicated), was admitted under exception. The objection to it was "that it was not shown that he (Fuller) was there that night"; that is, as we construe the objection, the night of the accident to Fuller. . If the testimony did not relate to the night of the accident, it was immaterial, and should have been excluded. The witness could not state that he shaved Fuller the night of the iujury, but did testify that he shaved him but once, which he thought was some time before the day on which the accident happened, but that, when he did shave him, some one else, he thought, commenced the work, and be (the witness) finished it. Fuller had testified that he was shaved just before the accident, and that the proprietor of the shop began to shave him, but turned him over "to some other lank-head" to finish shaving him. The testimony of the witness, in connection with Fuller's testimony, tended to show that it was the night of the accident that he shaved Fuller, and that on that occasion Fuller was sober, which was one of the facts in issue. The testimony was legitimate.
2. Max Valiquette gave material testimony for the defendant and was inquired of on cross-examination if he had ever been brought up on a complaint for selling liquor at the defendant's hotel. The question was excluded. It does not appear what the answer of the witness would have been, had he been permitted to answer the question. There was no offer to show the fact which his testimony would tend to prove. Therefore there was no error, for we cannot presume the answer would have beeu favorable to the plaintiff. Ainsworth v. Hutchins, 52 Vt 554; Smith v. Insurance Co., 60 Vt. 682, 15 Atl. 353; Roach v. Caldbeck, 64 Vt 593, 24 Atl. 989; Carpenter v. Willey, 65 Vt. 168, 26...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Asa Cummings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
... ... answer ( Smith v. Reynolds , 94 Vt. 28, 40, ... 108 A. 697; State v. Noakes , 70 Vt. 247, ... 256, 40 A. 249; Fuller v. Valiquette , 70 ... Vt. 502, 503, 41 A. 579, and cases cited), but the transcript ... shows that it was sufficiently indicated that an ... ...
-
Cummings v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co.
...give, if permitted to answer (Smith v. Reynolds, 94 Vt. 28, 40, 108 A. 697; State v. Noakes, 70 Vt 247, 256, 40 A. 249; Fuller v. Valiquett, 70 Vt. 502, 503, 41 A. 579, and cases cited), but the transcript shows that it was sufficiently indicated that an affirmative answer was anticipated (......
-
theodore Nelson v. the Travelers Insurance Co.
... ... exception is unavailing. Smith v. Reynolds , ... 94 Vt. 28, 40, 108 A. 697; State v. Noakes , ... 70 Vt. 247, 256, 40 A. 249; Fuller v ... Valiquette , 70 Vt. 502, 41 A. 579. Moreover it is ... clear that the plaintiff was not harmed by the exclusion ... ... ...
-
Childrens' Home, Inc. v. State Highway Bd.
...another collaterial fact that tends to weaken or overcome the impression made on the minds of the jury by the first. Fuller v. Valiquette, 70 Vt. 502, 504, 41 A. 579, 580; Lamonda v. Parizo, 90 Vt. 381, 384, 98 A. The two cases cited in the above excerpt both state that where the inadmissib......