Funk v. Ely et al.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1863 |
| Citation | 45 Pa. 444 |
| Parties | Funk <I>versus</I> Ely <I>et al.</I> |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
If the juror, Gordon, were challenged for cause, and that cause was no more than that he was brother-in-law to one of the counsel of the defendant, it was a palpable error. If he was challenged peremptorily, after the peremptory challenges allowed by law had been exhausted, it was, if possible, even more erroneous. It is difficult to determine, from the conflicting statements before us, how the fact was, but it is immaterial, for whichever way the fact was, there was no exception to it. What was excepted to, was the court's refusal to allow the defendant peremptorily to challenge the new juror called in Gordon's place, four peremptory challenges having been already enjoyed by the defendant. In this there was no error. The court could not give the defendant five peremptory challenges, the statute having allowed him but four.
The only error we see upon the record is in excluding from the jury all evidence tending to impeach Ely's books, except such as related to the account against Funk. Such a rule of evidence amounts to nothing in its practical application. If a defendant can disprove his particular account, he has no occasion to assail the general character of the plaintiff's books. It is only when he has no other means of meeting a false charge, that he assails the general character of the plaintiff's book, in the same manner in which he would assail the general character of a witness for truth and veracity, whose particular statement he could not controvert. The plaintiff who swears to his original book of entries, puts his general character for truth and veracity, and the general character of his book for honesty and accuracy, in evidence, and invites attack upon either or both.
It is general character which is thus brought into issue, and general character is formed by numerous particulars. When a book of original entries is offered in evidence, supported by the oath of the party, the court examines it to see if it appears, primâ facie, to be what it purports to be. If there are erasures and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Segers
...is prescribed by statute, the trial court could do no other than to deny appellant's request; it had no discretion in the matter. Funk v. Ely, 45 Pa. 444 (1863). (5) Appellant's final contention is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Our scope of review in determining s......
-
Keener v. Zartman
... ... Counsel ... cited: (1) 1 Greenl. Ev., § 348; 1 Whart. Ev., § ... 688; Van Swearingen v. Harris, 1 W. & S. 356; ... Odell v. Culbert, 9 W. & S. 66; Hoover v ... Gehr, 62 Pa. 136; Dodge v. Morse, 3 N.H. 232 ... (2) Trickett on Lim., 349, 350. (3) Funk v. Ely, 45 ... Pa. 444; Churchman v. Smith, 6 Wh. 146; Curren v ... Crawford, 4 S. & R. 3; 1 Whart. Ev., § 681; ... Shoemaker v. Kellog, 11 Pa. 310; Stuckslager v ... Neel, 123 Pa. 53; Hess's App., 112 Pa. 168. (6, 7) ... Trickett on Lim., §§ 230, 231; Watson v ... Stem, 76 Pa. 121; ... ...
-
Barton v. Shull
...The fact that the juror Gavin was related to counsel is, probably, not technical ground for challenge. Wood v. Wood, 52 N.H. 422; Funk v. Ely, 45 Pa. 444. Bros., Morey & Anderson, also for plaintiffs in error. Fayette I. Foss, A. S. Sands, J. D. Pope and B. V. Kohout, contra. HOLCOMB, J. SU......
-
Stoneroad Estate
...v. Smith, 6 Wh. 146; its general character may be impeached by showing irregularities in other accounts than the one in issue: Funk v. Ely et al., 45 Pa. 444; slips of paper showing charges are not admissible as a book of original entries: Thompson v. McKelvy, 13 S. & R. 126; entries, even ......