McManus v. Mason
| Citation | 27 S.E. 293,43 W.Va. 196 |
| Parties | McMANUS v. MASON. |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1897 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Submitted January 27, 1897
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a defendant in an action of assumpsit for services rendered him by plaintiff as a witness in his own behalf denies that he ever contracted with the plaintiff, and that he ever employed him for any purpose, and had nothing to do with his employment, and did not owe him a cent, the question, "Did you ever give plaintiff any directions about the work for the price of which he has brought this action?" is proper on cross-examination, and it is error to exclude it.
2. Where the defendant appears as a witness in his own behalf the plaintiff has the right to so cross-examine him as to elicit any facts which would in any way tend to corroborate the testimony of plaintiff, or contradict that of defendant.
3. The mode of conducting trials, the order of introducing evidence and the times when it is to be introduced, are properly matters belonging to the trial courts, with which this court ought not to interfere; and the trial courts must necessarily be vested with a large discretion in the regulation of their practice (Railroad Co. v. Stimpson, 14 Pet. 463) but such discretion does not extend to the exclusion of legal evidence offered in its proper order.
4. After the cross-examination of the defendant, the only witness for the defense, the plaintiff was recalled by his counsel for the purpose of identifying and then reading in evidence two letters purporting to be written by the defendant, and which had not before been offered. On objection of defendant, this evidence was not admitted. Held, that the court did not err in excluding it.
Error to circuit court, Greenbrier county.
Action by William V. McManus against S. B. Mason. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
L. J Williams, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Harris, for defendant in error.
McManus brought his action of assumpsit in the circuit court of Greenbrier county against Mason on account for services rendered as superintendent of brick masonry on tunnel under Seventh street, Richmond, Va. Issue was joined on plea of non assumpsit, a jury impaneled, and the case was tried November 16, 1895. Plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part testified "that he lived at Kingsbridge, N. Y.; that he was a labor contractor; that in the month of February, 1893, he contracted with the defendant to superintend, at the price of $200 per month, the brick masonry in arching a railroad tunnel in the city of Richmond, Va.; that said defendant agreed to pay him by the month for said work at the price aforesaid; that plaintiff began said work for the defendant on the 15th day of February, 1893, and superintended the same until the 1st day of July following; that the account filed by plaintiff, which is in the words and figures following [here follows bill of particulars, amounting to $900], is correct and unpaid; that no part of the $900 has been paid, and that the same is still due; that the price of $200 per month, agreed upon, was reasonable; that the defendant furnished the material and employed the hands who worked under defendant; and that defendant never disclosed to plaintiff that any one else was interested with him in the contract for the building of the tunnel,"--and here rested his case. The defendant, to maintain the issue on his part, testified "that he never contracted with the plaintiff to pay him $200 per month for superintending the brick masonry in arching the railroad tunnel at Richmond, Va.; that he had never employed the plaintiff for any purpose, and had nothing to do with his employment, and did not owe him a cent,"--and here rested. The plaintiff proceeded by his counsel to cross-examine the defendant. The defendant testified, in answer to certain questions so asked him, that some work had been done on the tunnel before he went there; that, after he went there, he drove up the approach cut, and had taken out the full section of the tunnel for about 75 feet, and had...
To continue reading
Request your trial