King v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1908 |
| Citation | 138 Iowa 625,116 N.W. 719 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | KING v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; David Mould, Judge.
Plaintiff had a verdict against defendant company for damages received by him while a passenger upon one of defendant's trains. On defendant's motion this verdict was set aside and a new trial awarded. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. L. Kennedy and J. P. Shoup, for appellant.
Shull, Farnsworth & Sammis, for appellee.
One La Flesh was a witness for the defendant, and, upon cross-examination,plaintiff's counsel, over defendant's objection, was permitted to identify an advertisement sent out by the witness, and to introduce the same in evidence. This advertisement showed that witness was general agent for Mountain Valley Mineral Water for Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The cirular introduced showed that this mineral water was a cure for Bright's disease, rheumatism, cystitis, diabetes, dropsy, and all stomach troubles resulting from a torpid liver. Plaintiff's counsel in argument used these statements in his address to the jury as impeaching the character and truthfulness of the witness, in that they were untrue in fact, as every one knows. This argument was objected to, and the objection was overruled. It is true that after the paper was received, and after the argument was made, plaintiff's counsel offered to withdraw the exhibit, and the defendant's counsel was asked if he consented to the withdrawal. In response he said he was not asking to have anything withdrawn and that he stood upon his objection. Thereupon the court overruled defendant's objections, not only to the paper, but to the argument as well. The new trial was granted because the trial court became convinced that it was in error in admitting this testimony.
It is entirely permissible to show the occupation of a witness and the character of his business; but it is not proper to impeach him by showing that, in the pursuit thereof, he made false and untrue statements. This is not the way in which to show a witness' reputation for truth and veracity. Testimony as to particular instances where he spoke an untruth in the pursuit of his occupation is inadmissible. Any other rule would open up all sorts of collateral inquiries; and from the standpoint of public policy, as well as to maintain directness of issue, impeachment should not be permitted by showing special instances of overstatement or of...
To continue reading
Request your trial