Mississippi Central Railroad Co. v. Walden

• Decision Date: 20 May 1912
• Citation: 58 So. 538,101 Miss. 781
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. v. MRS. M. E. WALDEN

58 So. 538

101 Miss. 781

MISSISSIPPI CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. v. MRS. M. E. WALDEN

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 20, 1912

October 1911

APPEAL from the circuit court of Jefferson Davis county, HON. A. E WEATHERSBY, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. M. E. Walden against the Mississippi Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Truly Ratcliff & Truly and H. S. Buescher, for appellant.

During the trial of the case appellant's attorney attempted to introduce three of the jurors for the purpose of proving the reasonable market value of a cow such as described by plaintiff, which, however, was not permitted by the court. This, in our opinion, is a reversible error under the decision of this court in the case of Bob White v. State, 73 Miss. 50, in which Judge Whitfiled among other things says: "That a juror may be a witness on a trial before himself and his fellows is well settled." Roy v. Horsley, 25 Am. Rep. 540, note; and, "A juror may always be a witness for either party and still retain his seat as a juror." Fellows case, 5 Me. 335, etc.

J. E. Parker, for appellee.

It is insisted by the appellant that the trial court violated the rule laid down by the case of White v. State, 73 Miss. 50 in not permitting jurors in the case to testify. The record shows that no juror was refused to testify for the reason that he was a juror, but that the juror witnesses were incompetent to testify in the manner interrogated. For it is manifestly incompetent for any witness to be permitted to answer the hypothetical question, "I will ask you what would be the value of a light red cow, two and a half or three years old, giving milk, weight unknown." The question is too indefinite and uncertain to permit an answer thereto to be received in evidence. But we submit that the rule laid down in the White case, nor any other case would permit a party to a suit to interrogate a juror concerning his opinion of the evidence before him upon the matters to be decided by him, prior to his verdict.

OPINION

COOK, J.

Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for the sum of seventy-five dollars the value of a cow killed by appellant's locomotive. Liability is confessed; but complaint is made at the value of the cow, fixed by the jury. It is claimed that this error was brought about by the action of the court in misdirecting the jury as to the law. The court, in effect, instructed the...