Gardner v. Metropolitan
| Citation | 177 S.W. 737 |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 11633.,11633. |
| Parties | GARDNER v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Kimbrough Stone, Judge.
Action by Bernice Gardner against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
John H. Lucas, of Kansas City, and L. T. Dryden, of Independence, for appellant. C. W. Prince, E. A. Harris, and J. E. Westfall, all of Kansas City, for respondent.
Plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's street cars, and while occupying that relation received personal injury which she charges was caused by defendant's negligence. She recovered judgment in the trial court.
In an examination of the panel of jurors touching their qualifications, plaintiff's counsel asked several of them concerning their being acquaintances of defendant's counsel. They answered that they were. Some had known him several years, and others were, or had been, his neighbors; and yet another was a member of the same church. Another was a barber and had "worked on him a few times." All answered that they could try the case fairly and would feel no embarrassment about it and that their acquaintance with counsel would in no way affect their verdict. These jurors were challenged for cause and excused over the objection and exception of defendant. There was no objection made as to the manner of selecting the panel, nor suggestion that its selection had been influenced by defendant or its counsel; the result being that some of them were excused merely because they were acquainted with counsel and some had been his neighbors. We think defendant has legal cause to complain. State v. Jones, 64 Mo. 391; Joyce v. Railway Co., 219 Mo. 344, 118 S. W. 21; Theobald v. Transit Co., 191 Mo. 418, 90 S. W. 354; Glasgow v. Railway Co., 191 Mo. 355, 89 S. W. 915; Vojta v. Pelikan, 15 Mo. App. 471.
Objections to the many remarks of plaintiff's counsel at the argument need not be noticed, since he will perhaps be more cautious at another trial.
The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Kansas City Railways Company
...... v. Dunham, 178 S.W. 903; Albert v. Railway, 192. Mo.App. 674; State v. Herring, 188 S.W. 172;. Joyce v. Railroad, 219 Mo. 344; Gardner v. Railway, 177 S.W. 737. (3) The court did not err in. failing and refusing to grant defendant a new trial because. of defendant's claim that ......
-
Quirk v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.
...This relationship of the juryman to the defendant was certainly stronger and more intimate than that shown in the case of Gardner v. Met. St. R. Co., 177 S. W. 737, cited by defendant. In that case there was no relationship whatever shown between the defendant and the juryman; nothing was s......
- Quirk v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Company
-
Blackburn-Ens, Inc. v. Roberts
...was not rendered incompetent to serve as a juror by reason of the relationship. The Kansas City Court of Appeals, in Gardner v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 177 S.W. 737, reversed a trial court which had sustained a challenge for cause directed at jurors who knew counsel for the defenda......