Preston v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation33 S.W. 783,132 Mo. 111
Decision Date21 January 1896
PartiesPRESTON v. HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO.
33 S.W. 783
132 Mo. 111
PRESTON
v.
HANNIBAL & ST. J. R. CO.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
January 21, 1896.

APPEAL — JURORS NOT SWORN ON VOIR DIRE — EVIDENCE — STATEMENTS IN ONE'S OWN FAVOR — ADMISSIBILITY.

1. When no exceptions are saved to the impaneling of two jurors, claimed by plaintiff not to have been sworn on their voir dire, and it does not appear that he was prejudiced by such omission, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

2. In an action where the issue is whether plaintiff was thrown from a moving train by defendant's conductor, prior statements made by plaintiff of his intention to go on the train are inadmissible.

Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county; Reuben F. Roy, Judge.

Action by Thomas Preston against the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by him in being ejected from one of defendant's trains. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover for injuries sustained by him in being ejected from a passenger train, while in motion, after it had pulled out from a station and proceeded some 200 yards. The evidence showed that plaintiff and a number of other young negro men living in Monroe were in the habit of getting upon the passenger trains, and seeing how far they could ride on the train and safely alight therefrom. The testimony of plaintiff's own witnesses showed conclusively that he joined with others in this practice. The plaintiff himself, though sworn as a witness, did not deny it. He, however, claimed that, without any provocation whatever, after he had informed the conductor that he wanted to go to Hunnewell, and put his hand in his pocket to get the money to pay his fare, the conductor suddenly and violently threw him from the train. The case was submitted to a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of defendant. After an unsuccessful effort to secure a new trial, the appellant (plaintiff below) brings the case to this court by appeal. The only errors complained of are — First, the exclusion of the declarations of plaintiff in his own favor; and, second, it is charged that two of the jurors, on the voir dire, were not sworn, so that their examination might be taken under the solemnity of an oath.

A. D. Bell and R. B. Bristow, for appellant. Spencer & Mosman, for respondent.

GANTT, P. J. (after stating the facts).


1. No exceptions were saved to the impaneling of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Abril 1929
    ...were not under any definition, thus far announced, part of the res gestae. 22 C.J. 220, secs. 198, 226, 230; sec. 199; Preston v. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. 111; Redmon v. Railroad, 185 Mo. 1; Grant v. Railroad, 172 Mo. App. 339; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 315 Mo. 166. (6) The giving of Instruction 2,......
  • State v. Glaros, No. 36138
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1960
    ...s251, p. 1014. What authority there is appears to be adverse to defendant's contention. Preston v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Rd. Co., 132 Mo. 111, 33 S.W. 783. See Trullinger v. Webb, 3 Ind. 198; Zell v. Commonwealth, 94 Pa. 258; Commonwealth v. Ware, 137 Pa. 465, 20 A. 806; State v. Hoyt, ......
  • Jones v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, No. 42271
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Septiembre 1951
    ...not prejudicially erroneous in the circumstances to admit the testimony of these two witnesses. Preston v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. 111, 33 S.W. The defendant's liability was hypothesized in an instruction which first set forth the defendant's duty: 'The Court instructs the ju......
  • Montgomery Light & Traction Co. v. Devinney, 3 Div. 286
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 31 Mayo 1917
    ...there were eyewitnesses to the accident: Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. McNeil (Ind.App.) 66 N.E. 777; Preston v. Hannibal & St. J.R. Co., 132 Mo. 111, 33 S.W. 783. The authorities having bearing upon this question may be found in the note to the case of Zucker, Adm'r, v. Whitridge, Receiver,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Koonse v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 27609.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 5 Abril 1929
    ...were not under any definition, thus far announced, part of the res gestae. 22 C.J. 220, secs. 198, 226, 230; sec. 199; Preston v. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. 111; Redmon v. Railroad, 185 Mo. 1; Grant v. Railroad, 172 Mo. App. 339; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 315 Mo. 166. (6) The giving of Instruction 2,......
  • State v. Glaros, No. 36138
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1960
    ...s251, p. 1014. What authority there is appears to be adverse to defendant's contention. Preston v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Rd. Co., 132 Mo. 111, 33 S.W. 783. See Trullinger v. Webb, 3 Ind. 198; Zell v. Commonwealth, 94 Pa. 258; Commonwealth v. Ware, 137 Pa. 465, 20 A. 806; State v. Hoyt, ......
  • Jones v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, No. 42271
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Septiembre 1951
    ...not prejudicially erroneous in the circumstances to admit the testimony of these two witnesses. Preston v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 132 Mo. 111, 33 S.W. The defendant's liability was hypothesized in an instruction which first set forth the defendant's duty: 'The Court instructs the ju......
  • Montgomery Light & Traction Co. v. Devinney, 3 Div. 286
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 31 Mayo 1917
    ...there were eyewitnesses to the accident: Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. McNeil (Ind.App.) 66 N.E. 777; Preston v. Hannibal & St. J.R. Co., 132 Mo. 111, 33 S.W. 783. The authorities having bearing upon this question may be found in the note to the case of Zucker, Adm'r, v. Whitridge, Receiver,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT