Langley v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6048.,6048. |
| Citation | 129 A. 1 |
| Parties | LANGLEY v. F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Action by Essie Etta Langley against the F. W. Woolworth Company. Heard on defendant's original petition under Gen. Laws c. 347, § 3, for leave to file in the superior court a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Petition denied and dismissed.
Green, Curran & Hart, Patrick P. Curran and Hoyt W. Lark, all of Providence (Stephen J. Casey, of Providence, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Quinn, Kernan & Quinn, of Providence, for defendant.
This case is heard on defendant's original petition in this court to file in the superior court an additional motion for a new trial. In the superior court, after a $7,000 verdict for plaintiff, defendant filed a motion for a new trial. It was denied, and exceptions to such action of the superior court are now pending in this court. The present petition is pursuant to section 3 of chapter 347, General Laws 1923, and is based on alleged evidence, newly discovered since the action of the superior court above referred to. Defendant's petition is met by a counter motion of plaintiff to dismiss.
The question raised is whether evidence offered by defendant, and said to be newly discovered, is legal evidence.
The verdict before referred to was found in favor of Essie Etta Langley for personal injuries resulting from a fall on August 21, 1922, alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence in permitting peanut shells to remain upon the floor of its department store.
Another suit in the superior court, brought by Alvin H. Langley, husband of Essie Etta Langley, against defendant, for loss of his wife's services as a result of the same accident, is now pending in the superior court. From that court and in that case a dedimus was issued to take the testimony at Washington, D. C, of the Adjutant General of the United States army, or of some one to be by him designated. The testimony sought related to facts alleged to be shown by the military record of Alvin H. Langley. Production of Langley's military record before the magistrate acting under the dedimus was ordered by a subpoena duces tecum from a competent court of the District of Columbia. One Captain Landrum, designated by the Adjutant General, appeared in response thereto, having in his possession a paper purporting to show such military record. It was not made by the witness, nor had he any personal knowledge about it or the facts stated thereon. He only knew that he had taken it from the files of the War Department. Acting under legal advice from that department, he refused to permit any one who was present at the taking of his deposition to see the record. This refusal applied alike to the magistrate, counsel for the defendant, and counsel for the plaintiff. The witness testified as to the contents of the record, at times saying he was reading therefrom and at other times stating his interpretation of the symbols thereon. To this proceeding plaintiff objected, both on the ground of inadmissibility of any evidence relating to the record, and of the manner in which the evidence was being offered. The deposition so taken is offered as a part of defendant's present petition. Petitioner asserts that, if this deposition could be presented to the superior court, a new trial on the question of damages might be granted.
1. Plaintiff's first objection to the use of the deposition is based upon the United States Selective Service Law (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 2044a-2044k) and section 11 of the Regulations established by the President pursuant thereto. She claims that the record is by law confidential and cannot be legally produced or used in this case without his consent. This consent has not been secured. We do not feel called upon to pass upon this objection since the manner of the record's use makes manifest the impropriety of the testimony.
We will assume, for the present purpose, that the record has been properly identified as that of Alvin H. Langley. Witness was ordered to "produce" such record....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delagi v. Delagi
...privilege); Hattaway v. Dickens, 163 Ga. 755, 137 S.E. 57; Jacobson v. Forster, 138 Neb. 452, 293 N.W. 336; Langley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 46 R.I. 394, 129 A. 1 (hearsay); Huffine v. Lincoln, 53 Mont. 474, 164 P. 888 (offer of compromise); Fernandez v. Security-First Nat. Bank, 206 Cal.App......
-
State v. Andrews, 9697
...is that of Charles F. McHugh, a probation counsellor for the state. It is all hearsay and avails defendant nothing. Langley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 46 R.I. 394, 397, 129 A. 1. No explanation is given as to why the affidavits of the persons who could testify were not taken. This affidavit re......
-
Ziegler v. Providence Biltmore Hotel Co.
... ... However, this is not the law. See Langley v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 47 R.I. 165, at page, 167, 131 A. 194; Id., 46 R.I. 394, 129 A. 1; Faubert v. Shartenberg's, Inc., supra; Tenbrink v. F. W ... ...
-
Jurgiewicz v. Adams .
...court has followed the general weight of authority on the question in issue. State v. Deslovers, 40 R.I. 89, 100 A. 64; Langley v. Woolworth Co., 46 R.I. 394, 129 A. 1. We find nothing in McKenn v. Providence County Savings Bank, 24 R.I. 542, 54 A. 49, if closely read, which in our opinion ......