Southern Ry. News Co. v. Russell
| Decision Date | 24 July 1893 |
| Citation | 18 S.E. 40,91 Ga. 808 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RAILWAY NEWS CO. v. RUSSELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The privilege of a witness not to give testimony tending in any manner to criminate himself continues, although a prosecution for the offense would, if commenced after the time of testifying, be barred by the statute of limitations, unless it affirmatively appears that no prosecution against him commenced in due time in any court having jurisdiction of the offense, is then pending.
From the interrogatories propounded to the witness in the present case, it sufficiently appears, in view of the statute of Alabama, that truthful answers to the same might tend to criminate him, and, this being so, the claim of privilege was properly allowed.
Error from superior court, Sumter county; W. H. Fish, Judge.
Proceedings by the Southern Railway News Company to compel C. E. Russell to answer certain interrogatories. From the judgment refusing to compel respondent to answer, applicant brings error. Affirmed.
Fort & Watson, for plaintiff in error.
B. P Hollis and E. A. Hawkins, for defendant in error.
It appears from the record that Russell had been a locomotive engineer on a railroad in Alabama, and that on one occasion while so employed, he left the depot in Birmingham, with his train, without orders to do so, and leaving the conductor of the train behind; that after running several miles he discovered that the conductor was missing, and thereupon started to back the train towards the depot, first sending Davis, a news agent who was on the train, to the rear, to act as watchman for him. While backing the train he came into collision with another train, and Davis was killed. It seems that a suit was instituted against the railroad company, in the state of Missouri, for the homicide of Davis, and the plaintiff in that suit sued out a set of interrogatories for Russell. Russell had in the mean time removed from Alabama to this state. When the interrogatories were presented to him he refused to answer, and this fact was reported to the judge of the superior court of the circuit wherein Russell resided; and the judge, under section 3885 of the Code, required Russell to appear before him to show cause why he should not answer. Russell appeared, and in response to the rule stated that the answers to the interrogatories would tend to criminate him, under the laws of Alabama. The judge refused to...
To continue reading
Request your trial