Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Dacus
| Citation | 97 Miss. 768,53 So. 398 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1910 |
| Docket Number | 14,497 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. ROBERT DACUS |
FROM the circuit court of Forrest county, HON. WILLIAM H. COOK Judge.
Dacus appellee, was plaintiff in the court below; the railroad company, appellant, was defendant there. From a judgment for $ 500 in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed to the supreme court.
The declaration alleged that while plaintiff was in the suburbs of Hattiesburg he made request of the conductor of one of appellant's passing passenger trains for permission to ride to the depot in the city; that, understanding the conductor had given him permission, he mounted the platform of one of the cars, whereupon the conductor wilfully and wantonly cursed him and kicked him off of the moving train as a result of which the plaintiff was severely injured. The evidence for the plaintiff proved the allegations of his declaration. The conductor, as a witness for defendant denied that he kicked the plaintiff off of the train; his testimony being to the effect that the plaintiff, without permission had climbed upon the steps of one of the passenger cars when the train slackened speed at a railroad crossing, that he made him get off, but without violence or without touching him; that the plaintiff then caught another car nearer the end of the train, and the witness again, without violence, made the plaintiff get off, and he did not know that plaintiff was hurt until some time later. During the trial a flagman of the train, on direct examination as a witness for defendant, testified that he called the conductor's attention to the presence of plaintiff on the train, and that he saw plaintiff voluntarily get off of the train. On his cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff the flagman denied having stated in the presence of a third person that the conductor kicked the plaintiff off of the train and that plaintiff "had a good case against them," meaning the railroad company. The opinion of the court more fully states the facts of the case.
Suggestion of error overruled.
Jeff Truly, for appellant.
Appellant was entitled to a peremptory instruction. Conceding the facts to be as testified to by appellee, it is apparent that he was on the train without the consent of the railroad company, but by permission of one of its employes given in violation of the rules of the railroad. This being true, it cannot be legally held that a railroad company is responsible for the action of its employes dealing with third parties, both of whom are knowingly violating the rules of the railroad especially when it is known that the railroad company had no relation of any kind with third persons. It is not conceded that the appellee in this case was a passenger, nor that he was on the train by the license or permission of the railroad company. His own testimony is that he was there by an implied permission given by one of the railroad company's employes who had no such power or authority; hence, the railroad company was not responsible for what might have occurred between the employe who had violated its rules and the third person who was participating in such violation.
It was error in the court below to permit the witness Eure to testify regarding his recollection of a conversation alleged to have occurred between one of the attorneys for the appellee and Dunn, a witness for appellant. The introduction of this testimony destroyed at once and inevitably the only chance that appellant might have had of obtaining a fair and impartial trial. As the incident testified to by Eure is alleged to have occurred on a railroad train, it necessarily follows that the only witnesses that could be procured were appellant's own servants. It further appears that the witness Dunn was the only man who was in such position that he could clearly see and identify appellee as the negro who had jumped on the moving train, and when once warned off, had boarded it again in spite of the refusal of the conductor to allow him to board it. It was on Dunn's testimony that the appellant was compelled to rely for its most positive and direct proof. The witness Dunn had been in some kind of trouble before the police court of Hattiesburg. He had been taken by a friend to invoke the assistance of one of the attorneys for this appellee in order to establish his innocence of the offense charged, which as the proof shows, he afterwards did. There, under these circumstances, in the office of the attorney whose good services he was endeavoring to procure, this alleged conversation arose. It must be remembered that the witness Dunn positively denied that he used any of the language attributed to him by this witness Eure. Notwithstanding that, the witness Eure was permitted to state, over the repeated protest of appellant, that Dunn had stated in that conversation when the attorney mentioned the suit against the appellant railroad company, that it was Booker, the conductor, who kicked him off and that in the opinion of Dunn, the attorney had a good case against this railroad company. I quote from the record: "I think Johnson first said that he had a suit against the Mississippi Central Railroad Company about a negro being kicked off the train somewhere, and Dunn spoke up and said it was Booker who kicked the negro off the train, and that the negro had a good case against them." This was all denied by Dunn; the entire conversation was denied; and yet the witness Eure was permitted to impeach him about this immaterial and collateral matter. The question of the impeachment of witnesses upon collateral matters had been so thoroughly and repeatedly dealt with by this court, that it would seen that the rule should now be accurately and generally understood. Williams v. State, 73 Miss. 820; Tucker v. Donald, 60 Miss. 460; Williams v. State, 73 Miss. 820; Garner v. State, 76 Miss. 515, 25 So. 363; Cooper v. State, 94 Miss. 480, 49 So. 178.
The language attributed to Dunn, although denied by him is We earnestly and confidently submit that under no rule of evidence was it correct to permit this statement to go to the jury. It does not stand the test laid down by Greenleaf and Wigmore, and announced by this court in the Williams case, supra. The utmost extent to which the rule could have been stretched after the denial of Dunn of the conversation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial