Ingersol v. McWillie
| Decision Date | 18 April 1895 |
| Citation | 30 S.W. 869 |
| Parties | INGERSOL et al. v. McWILLIE et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Actions by A. M. Ingersol and B. F. Coleman, respectively, against Ada A. McWillie and N. S. Ernst, contesting defendants' application for appointment as administrator and administratrix of the estate of A. R. Collins, deceased. There was a judgment of the county court for defendants, and on appeal to the district court the actions were consolidated, and judgment was rendered for defendants, which was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. 30 S. W. 56. On application for writ of error. Denied.
W. W. Wilkins and T. W. Stratton, for appellant Ingersol. Maughs & Peck and Dillard & Muse, for appellant Coleman. Standifer & Eppstein, Hazlewood, Smith & Tolbert, and Harris & Knight, for appellees.
We are of the opinion that the application in this case shows no error for which the judgment ought to be reversed. We cannot, except for special reasons, undertake to give the grounds for our conclusion in refusing to grant a petition for a writ of error. But in this case we are not prepared to hold that the trial court did not err in requiring the witness Lydia Hawley to answer the questions whether she had not had sexual intercourse with Collins, and whether she had not visited a house of ill fame. We did not find it necessary to decide the point. If error at all, it is error of which applicants cannot take advantage. The answers were relevant on cross-examination, as tending to show the bias of the witness, and as tending to affect the credibility of her testimony. The privilege of not answering in such a case is the privilege of the witness only. If a witness, either voluntarily or by compulsion of the court, answer a question which it is his privilege not to answer, no party can complain. Reg. v. Kinglake, 22 Law T. (N. S.) 335; Clark v. Reese, 35 Cal. 89, and cases cited; People v. Brown, 72 N. Y. 571. The application for a writ of error is refused.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turner
...tends to prove the defendant guilty of the crime charged.* * *See, also, State v. Cobley, 128 Iowa, 114, 103 N. W. 99; Ingersol v. McWille, 87 Tex. 647, 30 S. W. 869; State v. Van Winkle, 80 Iowa, 15, 45 N. W. 388; Samuel v. People, 164 Ill. 379, 45 N. E. 728; Beauvoir Club v. State, 148 Al......
-
State v. Shockley
...1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 469d; People v. Larsen, 10 Utah 143, 37 P. 258; Commonwealth v. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Ingersol v. McWillie, 87 Tex. 647, 30 S.W. 869; State v. Butler, 47 S.C. 25, 24 S.E. 991; v. Finnegan, 43 Md. 490; Clark v. Reese, 35 Cal. 89; Floyd v. The State, 7 Tex. 2......
-
Torkelson v. Byrne
...of the error.' Morgan v. Halberstadt (C.C.A. 2d) 60 F. 592, 596. "See also State v. Cobley, 128 Iowa 114, 103 N.W. 99; Ingersol v. McWille, 87 Tex. 647, 30 S.W. 869; State v. Van Winkle, 80 Iowa 15, 45 N.W. Samuel v. People, 164 Ill. 379, 45 N.E. 728; Beauvoir Club v. State, 148 Ala. 643, 4......
-
Ex parte Werblud
...is personal to a witness and must be claimed by the witness himself. Meyer v. Tunks, 360 S.W.2d 518 (Tex.1962); Ingersol v. McWillie, 87 Tex. 647, 30 S.W. 869 (Tex.1895); Ex parte Miers, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 592, 64 S.W.2d 778 (1933); Bybee v. State, 74 Tex.Cr.R. 211, 168 S.W. 526 (1914); Owen v. ......