Osborne v. Oliver

• Decision Date: 21 December 1886
• Citation: 23 Mo.App. 667
• Parties: E. F. OSBORNE, Respondent, v. JOHN C. OLIVER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

23 Mo.App. 667

E. F. OSBORNE, Respondent,

v.JOHN C. OLIVER, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Dec. 21, 1886.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

Affirmed with ten per cent. damages.

O. B. GIVENS, for the appellant.

HERMANN & REYBURN, for the respondent.

THOMPSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace upon a due bill given by the defendant to the plaintiff for one hundred and seventy-five dollars. On appeal to the circuit court, the cause was tried before the judge without a jury. The defence there set up was that the due bill had been given without any consideration, and that the defendant was entitled to a set off in the sum of one hundred dollars. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on both of these isues and entered judgment accordingly. No instructions were asked for or given.

Three assignments of error are made in this court: 1. That the court erred in ruling out certain evidence offered by the defendant. 2. That the court erred in admitting certain evidence offered by the plaintiff. 3. That the evidence of the plaintiff was clearly and conclusively impeached, and that the court erred in not so finding.

In respect of the first and second of these two assignments of error, the appellant fails to put his finger upon any ruling of the court to which he especially objects, or to state any reason why the court should be put in the wrong by reason of any ruling made touching the admissibility of evidence. He simply says, in his argument and brief, that “exceptions were saved by the appellant to the court's ruling on the admissibility, or non-admissibility of evidence, which appears on record pages 15, 16, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, and on many pages thereafter.” We are thus expected to go on a hunt through the record, to see if we can not find some ruling by which, on some idea or other, which is not suggested to us by the appellant, we can reverse the judgment. The record has been read with care, and we find nothing touching the rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence of which the appellant can make complaint upon any substantial grounds.

The assignment of error, that the evidence of the plaintiff was clearly and conclusively impeached, and that the court erred in not so finding, is equally idle. In the first place, the evidence of the plaintiff was not clearly and conclusively impeached. The plaintiff's general character was impeached by...