Granger v. National Convoy & Trucking Co.

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FELTON, Judge.
• Citation: Granger v. National Convoy & Trucking Co., 7 S.E.2d 915, 62 Ga.App. 294 (Ga. App. 1940)
• Decision Date: 23 February 1940
• Docket Number: 28065-28068.
• Parties: GRANGER et al. v. NATIONAL CONVOY & TRUCKING CO. et al. GRANGER v. SAME. DEWEES v. SAME (two cases).

7 S.E.2d 915

62 Ga.App. 294

GRANGER et al. v. NATIONAL CONVOY & TRUCKING CO. et al.

GRANGER v. SAME.

DEWEES v. SAME (two cases).

Nos. 28065-28068.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

February 23, 1940

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

anything about attorney's coming to see witness, cross-examination by plaintiffs' attorney whether witness said automobile might have got damaged by being pulled out by wrecker and attorney did not say witness was trying to figure out way to help insurance company was properly excluded, since answer would have illustrated no issue and had no connection with whether what witness had previously sworn was true.

Fraser Irwin & Latimer, of Atlanta, and James H. Paschall, of Calhoun, for plaintiffs in error.

Brandon Hynds & Tindall and Wm. A. Mitchell, Jr., all of Atlanta for defendants in error.

FELTON Judge.

1. An attorney for the plaintiffs was cross-examining D. W. Richards, a witness sworn for the defendant. The witness had testified as to a conversation had with the attorney stating that the attorney told him not to say anything about the attorney's coming to see him. The attorney then asked this question: "Was this not what happened--let me find out-- is this not what happened between you and me, did you say the Ford might have got damaged by being pulled out by the wrecker and did I not say you are just trying to figure out a way to help the insurance company--was that the way it happened?" The question was excluded. There was no error in excluding this question for any reason assigned in the exception taken to its exclusion. The reasons assigned as to why the exclusion of this evidence was error are: (a) Said question and answer so excluded was pertinent and material on the issue then being tried; (b) the rejection of such question by the court was prejudicial to plaintiff, and put the plaintiff in a false light before the jury, and tended to show misconduct on the part of the plaintiffs' lawyer by permitting only a part of a conversation he had with the witness to remain before the jury; (c) having permitted a part of said conversation to remain before the jury, the court should have permitted the entire conversation to be explained, in fairness to plaintiff and counsel; (d) movants expected the answer to the question to have been "Yes." Plaintiffs do not contend that the evidence excluded was elicited for the purposes of impeachment but the exclusion of the answer was not error because the answer elicited would have illustrated no issue and had no connection with whether what the witness had previously sworn was true or not. Brown v. State, 119 Ga. 572, 46 S.E. 833.

2. It was not error to permit a witness to testify that it was dangerous to drive automobiles on a certain road at a rapid rate of speed and that "it was dangerous to be there at all with anyone,"...