Pickwick Greyhounds Line, Inc. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 18 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 29459 |
| Citation | 134 So. 566,160 Miss. 470 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | PICKWICK GREYHOUNDS LINE, INC., v. JOHNSON |
Instruction authorizing jury to disregard testimony of witness "willfully" testifying falsely instead of "willfully, knowingly. and corruptly," or equivalent, held erroneous.
APPEAL from circuit court of Washington county, HON. S. F. DAVIS Judge.
Action by C. A. Johnson against Pickwick Greyhounds Line, Inc. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Farish & Bell, of Greenville, and Dabney & Dabney, of Vicksburg, for appellant.
The giving of the following instruction was erroneous:
"The court instructs the jury for the plaintiff that if you believe from the evidence in this case that any witness has wilfully testified falsely concerning a matter material to the issue, then you are warranted in disregarding the entire testimony of that witness."
An instruction of this character must always contain the full equivalent of the limitations that such false swearing was "wilful, knowing and corruptly done."
Railroad Company v. McCoy, 85 Miss. 391; D'Antoni v. Albritton, 156 Miss. 758, 126 So. 836; McClure v. State, 128 So. 764; W. T. Farley, Inc., v. Smith, 130 So. 478.
Ben Wilkes, of Greenville, for appellee.
The instruction given appellee was not erroneous although it omitted the word "corruptly" because it used the words "wilfully testified falsely" which was the equivalent.
Merriweather v. Sayre Min., etc. Co., 49 So. 916; Kress v. Lawrence, 47 So. 574; O'Rourke v. Vennehol, 37 P. 930; Rapids, etc., R. R. Co. v. Martin, 3 N.W. 173; O'Connell v. St. Louis Cable Co., 17 S.W. 494; Blankavag v. Badger Box Co., 117 N.W. 852; Branson's Instructions to Juries, page 76.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Washington county, awarding the appellee a recovery of two thousand five hundred dollars as damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of the negligent operation of a bus on which he was a passenger, and which was owned and operated by the appellant.
The testimony bearing upon the issue of whether or not the overturning of the bus and consequent injury of the appellee was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus was sharply conflicting, and, in submitting this vital issue to the jury, the court, at the request of the appellee, granted an instruction in the following language: "The court instructs the jury for the plaintiff that if you believe from the evidence in this case that any witness has wilfully testified falsely concerning a matter material to the issue then you are warranted in disregarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial