Georgia Power Co. v. Robertson, 36928
| Decision Date | 28 January 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 36928,36928,1 |
| Citation | 102 S.E.2d 510,97 Ga.App. 142 |
| Parties | GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. E. H. ROBERTSON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. (a) It is not error to admit evidence introduced by the defendant, which proves a fact alleged in the petition.
(b) An opinion is not a conclusion when the witness states the facts upon which he bases the same.
(c) The trial judge did not err in refusing to allow pictures of property, other than that condemned, to be admitted in evidence.
2. (a) Where there exist no conflicting instructions in the charge of the court it will be construed as a whole.
(b, c) The exceptions in subsections (b) and (c) of ground two are without merit.
The Georgia Power Company filed its notice and petition to condemn certain lands of the condemnee, E. H. Robertson. An award of the assessors was entered and the Georgia Power Company, being dissatisfied with the award, filed its appeal to the Superior Court. On the trial the jury found a verdict in the amount of $7,104.16. The condemner filed a motion for new trial which was denied, and it is to this ruling that exception is taken.
Miller, Miller & Miller, Wallace Miller, Jr., Macon, for plaintiff in error.
James R. Davis, Jr., Thomaston, for defendant in error.
1. (a) Special ground 1 insists that the trial judge erred in allowing in evidence a plat which showed that the property involved in this proceeding was bounded on one side by a subdivision. This contention is without merit because the petition and plat filed by the condemner shows that the property is bounded on one side by a subdivision. The condemner could not object to the condemnee proving what it had alleged in its own petition.
(b) The condemner also insists that the trial judge erred in permitting the condemnee to testify: because it was a conclusion of the witness and invaded the province of the jury. The judge struck the word 'damages' from the above testimony. The witness gave his opinion of the value of the property prior to the construction of the condemner's power lines and also his opinion as to what its value would be after the construction. He then stated that he would suffer a loss equal to the difference of these amounts. Under the holding in Central Georgia Power Co. v. Mays, 137 Ga. 120, 72 S.E. 900, this was not a conclusion invading the province of the jury, because he gave the facts upon which he based his opinion.
(c) The condemner further insists that the judge erred in refusing to allow pictures of other property over which power lines had been built to be admitted in evidence and in not permitting a witness to be cross examined concerning the pictures.
The ground of the motion alleges that the pictures offered in evidence were of industrial plants and residences in the same county as the property involved in the case, but the property is not alleged to be in the same vicinity or in any respect comparable to that condemned. Under well settled rules of evidence the pictures were not relevant to the issues of the case, and were inadmissible as evidence. Georgia Power Co. v. Chapman, 46 Ga.App. 582(6), 168 S.E. 131. The right of cross examination is not abridged where cross examination of a witness as to irrelevant matters is not permitted. Hart v. State, 14 Ga.App. 364, 365, 80 S.E. 909; Walden v. State, 83 Ga.App. 231(2), 63 S.E.2d 232. The ground shows no error.
2. (a) The condemner complains of the following charge: 'They shall assess the value of the property taken and used and the damages done, and they shall also assess the consequential damages to the property not taken, and deduct from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Justice v. State Highway Dept., 37975
...such damages are shown. Code, §§ 36-504, 36-506; McArthur v. State Highway Dept., 85 Ga.App. 500, 69 S.E.2d 781; Georgia Power Co. v. Robertson, 97 Ga.App. 142, 102 S.E.2d 510. Applying these rules of law to the above charge, the instruction to the jury to 'temporarily ignore the strip of l......
-
Department of Transp. v. English, 50864
...examination is not abridged where cross examination of a witness as to irrelevant matters is not permitted.' Ga. Power Co. v. Robertson, 97 Ga.App. 142, 143, 102 S.E.2d 510, 512. 'The trial court has a discretion to control the right of cross-examination within reasonable grounds, and the e......
-
Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Waters, 45868
... ... Lester E. WATERS ... No. 45868 ... Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3 ... June 15, 1971 ... [124 Ga.App. 47] ... See Georgia Power Co. v. Robertson, 97 Ga.App. 142(1c), 102 S.E.2d 510; Adams v. City of ... ...
-
Breland v. State, 50016
...conclusion when the witness states facts upon which he bases it and does not invade the province of the jury. Ga. Power Co. v. Robertson, 97 Ga.App. 142, 143, 102 S.E.2d 510. It therefore became a question of what weight the jury would give the testimony. Here, the jury was properly instruc......