McMillan v. Ridges
| Decision Date | 08 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17129,17129 |
| Citation | 91 S.E.2d 883,229 S.C. 76 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. F. McMILLAN, administrator of the estate of James Howard Ridges, deceased, intestate, Appellant, v. Sampson RIDGES and Alice O. Hubbard, in her own right, and Alice O. Hubbard, as trustee for Brenda Joyce Hubbard, copartners doing business under the trade name and style of Nehl Bottling Co., Respondents. |
Josiah J. Evans, Eugene Huggins, Bennettsville, F. Turner Clayton, Cheraw, for appellant.
Tison & Tison, Goldberg & Cottingham, Bennettsville, for respondents.
This is an action for damages for alleged wrongful death. Plaintiff's intestate was the two year old nephew of the respondent Ridges. The latter had driven a truck of his employers, who were also defendants and are now respondents, to the home of his mother and as he started to drive away from it the child was struck or run over by the truck and suffered injuries from which death resulted. The complaint contained numerous allegations of negligence and the answer was a general denial. The trial resulted in verdict of the jury for the defendants and motion for new trial was refused by the court. This appeal followed.
Detailed statement of the testimony is unnecessary to the consideration of the appeal. The plaintiff, now appellant, produced one purported eyewitness who testified, in substance, that he was sitting on the porch of his adjoining home and saw and heard the child beg the driver for a ride and was told by the latter to get on the side of the truck, from which he fell as the truck moved away from the premises. However, the witness had made a prior statement which was at variance with his testimony, and on cross-examination he was questioned concerning it. He could not read or write but he did not deny having made the statement and that it was read to him when reduced to writing. Nor did he deny that the material contents of the statement were as embodied in the questions which were propounded to him, and as to conflicts between them and his testimony at the trial he said, quoting, Early in the cross-examination with reference to this prior conflicting statement counsel for appellant objected to the cross-examination upon the ground that the witness denied signing the prior statement, which was overruled. The written statement was not offered in evidence.
The appellant has argued only two questions in his brief and all others which may have been made by the exceptions are deemed to have been abandoned. The first is that it was error to permit the impeachment of the credibility of the witness when he had not been advised of the circumstances of the making of the prior conflicting statement and was not asked as to the time, place or person involved in it; and the second is that it was error to permit cross-examination of the witness by the reading from a statement, allegedly made by him, which was not in evidence and which he denied signing. The questions are so closely allied that they will be discussed together.
First, it should be repeated that the witness did not deny having made the statement but, on the contrary, admitted having done so. Without objection, he testified that he had talked to 'a man' about the accident who 'put down' what the witness said and read it over to him. He remembered telling the 'man' that he could not read but he could not remember whether he made his mark, which latter he finally denied. Furthermore, he admitted the conflicts and explained them by claiming fear at the time of the statement, as is quoted above from his testimony. This explanation of the witness was properly admitted in evidence for consideration by the jury. State v. Center, 205 S.C. 42, 30 S.E.2d 760, (concurring opinion.)
Appellant has confused the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sierra
... ... McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 80-81, 91 S.E.2d 883, 885 (1956) (citation omitted) ... Though it is proper to elicit testimony by leading ... ...
-
State v. Koon
... ... Therefore, the prosecutor properly questioned the psychiatrist for impeachment purposes. McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956); 98 C.J.S.Witnesses § 484 (1957). In addition, the cross-examination of a witness to test his ... ...
-
Elliott v. Black River Elec. Co-op.
... ... State v. White, 15 S.C. 381; State v. Henderson, 52 S.C. 470, 30 S.E. 477; State v. Marks, 70 S.C. 448, 50 S.E. 14; McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883. It does not follow that the formula of 'when-where-to whom' must in all cases be blindly adhered to as an ... ...
-
State v. Bottoms, 19576
... ... 532, 178 S.E. 145; Squires v. Henderson, 208 S.C. 58, 36 S.E.2d 738 ... We quote the following appropriate language from McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883, 884: ... 'Here the admissions of the witness that he made the material[260 S.C. 194] portions of the ... ...
-
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
...conduct of the trial, including the examination of witnesses, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956); State v. Nathari, 303 S.C. 188, 399 S.E.2d 597 (Ct. App. 1990). It should be noted that Rule 614 controls the calling a......
-
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
...conduct of the trial, including the examination of witnesses, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956); State v. Nathari, 303 S.C. 188, 399 S.E.2d 597 (Ct. App. 1990). It should be noted that Rule 614 controls the calling a......
-
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
...conduct of the trial, including the examination of witnesses, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956); State v. Nathari, 303 S.C. 188, 399 S.E.2d 597 (Ct. App. 1990). It should be noted that Rule 614 controls the calling a......
-
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
...conduct of the trial, including the examination of witnesses, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See McMillan v. Ridges, 229 S.C. 76, 91 S.E.2d 883 (1956); State v. Nathari, 303 S.C. 188, 399 S.E.2d 597 (Ct. App. 1990). It should be noted that Rule 614 controls the calling a......