International & G. N. R. Co. v. Goswick

• Decision Date: 12 November 1904
• Citation: 83 S.W. 423
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. GOSWICK.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

83 S.W. 423

INTERNATIONAL & G. N. R. CO. v. GOSWICK.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

November 12, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Wood County; R. W. Simpson, Judge.

Action by S. D. Goswick against the International & Great Northern Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

N. A. Steadman and Gould & Morris, for appellant. Duncan & Larreter, for appellee.

RAINEY, C. J.

This is a suit for personal injuries, brought by appellee against appellant, in which judgment was rendered for appellee.

Conclusions of Fact.

Appellee was a passenger on appellant's train, and while said train was standing at Kyle, a station on appellant's road, another train negligently ran into it from the rear, injuring appellee, and appellee was damaged to the extent named in the judgment.

Conclusions of Law.

The court did not err in excluding testimony offered by appellant as to the amount appellee had rendered his property for taxation. Appellant's bill of exceptions shows that appellee testified he had accumulated property by his practice worth about $4,000 a year, and in rebuttal appellant undertook to show that he had accumulated very little property; that he had placed an exorbitant value on it in testifying; and, as a circumstance to show its true value, defendant offered to show that he did not render it for taxes for near as much as he claimed it was worth on the stand. We are of the opinion that the rendition of property for taxation is no criterion of its value, and such evidence is not proper for the establishment of that fact. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Abney, 3 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 414; Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. Kell, 4 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 150, 16 S. W. 936.

Appellant complains of the action of the court in not admitting certain expert testimony, as shown by the following bill of exceptions, to wit: "Be it remembered that, upon the trial of the above entitled and numbered cause, defendant's counsel propounded to Drs. Jameson, Dupuy, and Martin, medical witnesses for the defendant, each the following questions: `You heard the long question propounded by Judge Duncan, which is Mr. Goswick's history of the matter from his standpoint. Now, if Mr. Goswick should come to you and call you in as his physician now, and you had to treat him, and if he should give to you the history of his case that Judge Duncan detailed to you in hypothetical question, added to your own personal knowledge of his condition when you saw him at San Antonio, coupled with the fact that he had a lawsuit pending against the railroad company for money, and with your knowledge that Mr. Goswick knows that the worse he makes the statement, the more money he will get, then, with your knowledge of his condition when you saw him, and of his appearance now, and of the fact that he had fattened after the injury, and that he took a trip to Georgia, South Carolina, Philadelphia, and Washington, and you had to diagnose his case now, what would you say is the matter with him?' Plaintiff's counsel objected to the question because it called for an opinion of the witness based partly upon the witness' knowledge that plaintiff had a lawsuit pending for money, and that, the worse he makes the statement of his condition, the more money he will get, and thus calls for an opinion of the witness upon the credibility of the plaintiff and upon the weight of his testimony, which questions are to be decided by the jury, and not by the opinion of a witness. Defendant's counsel than stated that the reason for asking the question was that the physicians are put in the attitude of having to swallow, blood raw, as the gospel truth, matters and things contained in the hypothetical question propounded by plaintiff's attorneys, and to pass their opinion on that as if it were the truth, when common experience teaches that they frequently find a man suffering or pretending to suffer, and that they have to ignore his history of the case. If they follow his history, they would often kill him with the treatment. Here is the question: With your knowledge of the whole case, and confronted with Mr. Goswick's history, under the circumstances under which he himself found that case, and having knowledge of it, and, under the circumstances, it is dollars and cents to the plaintiff, then his doctor ought to be able to pass upon it, as he knows it. The court sustained the objection of plaintiff's counsel to the question, but stated to the counsel for the defendant that he might ask the question, on leaving out of it that part as to plaintiff's having...