Jones v. Giannola
| Decision Date | 18 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 28442,28442 |
| Citation | 252 S.W.2d 660 |
| Parties | JONES v. GIANNOLA. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Oliver F. Erbs and Walter S. Berkman, St. Louis, for appellant.
Francis M. O'Brien and Charles E. Thompson, St. Louis, for respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is a suit for money had and received, brought by Nettie Jones against Joseph Giannola, to recover $1,400 claimed to have been placed with defendant for safe-keeping. Defendant has appealed from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,400.
According to plaintiff, she had a sum of money in a trunk in her bedroom, consisting of $1,400. Part of the money came from a previous marriage, part of it was accumulated by plaintiff between 1941 and 1947, and $500 of the sum belonged to her daughter. Because of robberies and killings in the neighborhood plaintiff feared to keep the money in her trunk any longer. Knowing defendant, a neighborhood grocer, and having done business with him for years, plaintiff trusted him, and at her request on November 22, 1947 he accepted from her $1,400.95, consisting of $30 in silver and the rest in 5, 10, and 20 dollar bills, to hold 'until the end of the week,' when she was to return, take the money and put it in a bank. Defendant assured her that he would keep it safely. That night, upon retiring, plaintiff was injured by an assailant, taken to City Hospital, and later to a state hospital for mental cases. Upon release from the hospital some two years later she applied to defendant for her money and other valuable papers entrusted to him at the time mentioned. He returned the papers and offered to return to her $14, which she refused to accept.
The defense was conducted on the theory that $14 was the amount left by plaintiff with defendant, and that her claim that the amount was $1,400 was a 'figment of the imagination.' Defendant sought to show that her testimony was incredible and unreliable; that she was eligible for and had been receiving old age assistance for years; that she had no such sum of money as $1,400 at the time in question, but on the contrary was a poor person. In support of this phase of the defense, defendant introduced in evidence city and state hospital records containing statements signed by Nettie Jones that she had no property and no savings and recitals that she had no automobile, no property, no stocks and bonds and no hospital or life insurance. Appellant also caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served upon Mr. Robert Rippeto, Director of the Welfare Office of the City of St. Louis, commanding him to bring to court all of the records of that agency pertaining to Nettie Jones, apparently on the theory that these records would disclose statements and facts in her application for old age assistance indicating that she was eligible for such assistance; that she had received relief for many years; that she was destitute in 1947 and had been destitute for many years prior thereto.
Witness Rippeto was called to the stand as a witness for defendant. After Rippeto testified that he had the records of Nettie Jones with him, counsel for defendant requested that they be marked and stated that he wanted to offer them in evidence 'for the purpose of showing the jury what statements Nettie Jones had made prior to the alleged date she gave the money to Mr. Giannola.' Upon objection of plaintiff's counsel that 'It's contrary to law' the trial court refused to permit the witness to testify, for the reason that under Section 208.120 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., any testimony the witness might give would subject him to the possibility of a misdemeanor prosecution. Counsel for defendant then said: 'Very well, you may step down.'
On this appeal two assignments of error are made: (1) refusal of the trial court to receive in evidence the records of the St. Louis Welfare Agency pertaining to Nettie Jones, and (2) refusal to permit Robert Rippeto to testify concerning the eligibility of Nettie Jones and her daughter to receive public assistance.
As to (1), appellant did not offer to prove the contents of the records. No disclosure was made to the court concerning the nature and purpose of the excluded evidence or of any facts necessary to establish its admissibility, or what the records showed as to the questions asked and answers given by Nettie Jones, or what admissions against interest may have been made by Nettie Jones therein. The trial court had no way of knowing, and we do not know, what statements of Nettie Jones, if any, appear therein, what pertinent facts would have been disclosed thereby, whether the records support the contentions of counsel, or whether they would have thrown any light whatever upon the controversy. Under such circumstances we cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beeler v. Board of Adjustment of City of Joplin, 7512
...St. L. Ry. Co., 328 Mo. 59, 40 S.W.2d 688, 693(10).9 Sykes v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co., Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 918, 920(6); Jones v. Giannola, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 660, 663(6); Knight v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., Mo.App., 268 S.W.2d 53, 55(6); Winkel v. Streicher, Mo.App., 287 S.W.2d 389, 394(12).1......
-
Magenheim v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 48299
...present nothing for our consideration. Berghorn v. Reorganized School Dist. No. 8, 364 Mo. 121, 260 S.W.2d 573[5, 6]; Jones v. Giannola, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 660[6, 7]. Issues submitted in appellant's original brief are not to be enlarged by presentations in his reply brief, as respondent is......
-
Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Company
...Dept. of Employment Security v. Superior Court, 79 R.I. 63, 82 A.2d 885 (1951); social security (welfare) records: Jones v. Giannola, 252 S.W.2d 660, 663 (Mo.Ct.App. 1952); State ex rel. State v. Church, 35 Wash.2d 170, 211 P.2d 701 (1949); State ex rel. Haugland v. Smythe, 25 Wash.2d 161, ......
-
Baker v. Atkins
...A point is not properly presented for review if advanced for the first time in the argument. Supreme Court Rule 1.08; Jones v. Giannola, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 660, 663, and cases cited. We have, however, read the questions asked by the trial judge and the answers of the witness Lawrey. In our......