Rose v. Vasseur
Decision Date | 22 June 1962 |
Citation | 358 S.W.2d 540 |
Parties | Josephine ROSE, Administratrix of Refus Rose, Appellant, v. T. E. VASSEUR, Appellee. Marcus Milford WALKER, Appellant, v. Stanley VINSON, Jr., et al., Appellees. Josephine ROSE, Administratrix of the Estate of Refus Rose, Appellant, v. Stanley VINSON, Jr., Appellee. Consolidated Cases |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Francis T. Goheen, Paducah, for appellants.
L. M. Tipton Reed, Mayfield, Adrian H. Terrell, James L. Hardy, Paducah, for appellees.
This is a second appeal in this case. See Rose v. Vasseur, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 608. The testimony is substantially the same in this case and it was submitted to a jury substantially in accordance with this Court's holding on the first appeal. On this appeal no complaint is made about the instructions. The jury found for the defendants and the plaintiffs, Rose and Walker, appeal.
The basis for the appeal is stated in appellants' brief as follows:
'Rose and Walker appeal because they believe that they were denied a fair and impartial trial as a result of what was said and done by the Circuit Judge during the trial.'
Counsel for appellants undertook to introduce some pictures and counsel for appellees objected. We quote from the record as to what transpired at that time in the presence of the jury:
'By Mr. Terrell: We object, because the picture doesn't show the same road.
Emphasis added.
Later, the appellants offered to introduce the testimony of the appellee, Vasseur, taken on the former trial. We quote again from the record as to what transpired at that time in the presence of the jury:
'By The Court: Well, how do you know Vasseur isn't going to testify this time?
'By Mr. Goheen: I'm putting on my case.
'By Mr. Goheen: Yes, sir, I am putting on the evidence of an adverse party.
Emphasis added.
Later, the appellants offered to introduce the deposition of the appellee, Vinson, taken as on cross-examination. We again quote from the record as to what happened at that time in the presence of the jury:
'By Mr. Goheen: I never heard of anybody objecting to the reading of a deposition taken of an adverse party.
'By Mr. Terrell: If the court please, Mr. Vinson is in court.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Eubank
...& N.R. Co. v. Utz, 297 Ky. 70, 178 S.W.2d 958; Martin v. Tipton, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 809; Collins v. Sparks, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 45; Rose v. Vasseur, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 540. Similar conduct has been condemned elsewhere. Levy v. Reilly, 18 A.D.2d 632, 234 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (App.Div.1962); Agee v. Lofton, 2......
-
Transit Authority of River City (TARC) v. Montgomery
...undue importance and great weight may be attached by the members of the jury to any remark made by him in their presence. Rose v. Vasseur, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 540 (1962). A remark, if improper, is not grounds for reversal if it does not reach the ears of the jurors. Eubank, supra. Mere casual r......
-
Com., Dept. of Highways v. Back
...relied on by appellant. See Collins v. Sparks, Ky., 310 S.W.2d 45; City of Prestonsburg v. Mellon, 220 Ky. 808, 295 S.W. 1064; Rose v. Vasseur, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 540; Com., Dept. of Highways v. Eubank, Ky., 369 S.W.2d Neither do we feel that the evidence of Mr. Hammon should have been stricke......
-
Vasseur v. Rose
...the jury found for Vasseur and Vinson but this court reversed because of improper and prejudicial remarks of the trial judge. Rose v. Vasseur, Ky., 358 S.W.2d 540. Upon a fourth trial of the case the jury awarded Walker $1,000 and the administratrix of Rose's estate $10,000. From the judgme......