Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Creason

• Decision Date: 12 February 1908
• Citation: 107 S.W. 527
• Parties: MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. CREASON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

107 S.W. 527

MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. CREASON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 12, 1908.

Certified Question from Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.

Action by T. R. Creason against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certifies a question to the Supreme Court. Question answered.

T. S. Miller and Garnett & Hughston, for appellant. Church & Doyle, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

Certified question from the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District, as follows:

"In this case appellee recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $350 as damages for personal injuries sustained at a railroad crossing in one of the streets of McKinney, Tex. The evidence warranted, but did not require, the verdict in appellee's favor. Numerous errors have been assigned; but we find no merit in any of them, unless the court erred in allowing appellee, on cross-examination of appellant's witness Sam Apple, to prove that the witness had been charged with arson and other crimes. The testimony of this witness was material, and if the court erred in the ruling complained of it would in our opinion necessitate a reversal of the judgment. After he had testified to material facts in behalf of appellant, he was asked on cross-examination if he had ever been charged with any offense against the law, and, if so, what offense, and was permitted to answer, over the objection in effect that a witness could not thus be discredited, `that he had been charged with arson, burning a building, also with carrying a pistol, and also with a few other frivolous things.' In view of the conflict of authority on this question, we deem it advisable to certify it to your honors for decision; that is, whether it is competent on cross-examination to impeach a witness by proving by him that he has been indicted for a felony or other crime.

"For a fuller statement of the question certified and of the circumstances attending the ruling complained of, together with the citation of authorities bearing on the question, we refer to the second and third assignments of appellant as set forth in its brief, from pages 30 to 39, inclusive, and appellee's brief, pages 3 to 7, inclusive."

At an early date in the history of this court it was settled that "in the impeachment of a witness the inquiry should be confined to his general reputation for truth, and that it should not extend to his general moral character." Boon v. Weathered's Adm'r, 23 Tex. 675; Ayres v. Duprey, 27 Tex. 594, 86 Am. Dec. 657; Kennedy v. Upshaw, 66 Tex. 452, 1 S. W. 308. In the case last cited Judge Stayton quoted the rule as above stated from Boon v. Weathered's Adm'r, and said: "This is in accordance with the great weight of authority." Boon v. Weathered's Adm'r has been followed by this court in all subsequent decisions, and has in no sense been modified in its application to impeachment of witnesses.

However, it is claimed that the rule is not applicable to impeachment of a witness by...