State Highway Dept. v. Wells
| Decision Date | 16 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 38310,38310,1 |
| Citation | 115 S.E.2d 585,102 Ga.App. 152 |
| Parties | STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. R. E. WELLS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The usual general grounds of the condemnor's motion for new trial were expressly abandoned.
2. It is not ground for objection to testimony that a witness, after testifying to a fact, testifies on cross-examination to facts that tend to show that he knows little or nothing about the fact to which he previously testified on direct examination.
3. The failure to expressly charge, without request, that the jury is not to consider hearsay testimony ruled out of a trial after it has first been admitted will not result in the grant of a new trial when the witness heard by the first witness testifies on personal knowledge to the same fact.
The State Highway Department of Georgia filed a condemnation proceeding against certain property owned by Ralph E. Wells in Gray County, Georgia. The special master appointed by the court made his return to the superior court, and both the condemnor and the condemnee appealed. On the trial of the case thus made the jury in the Superior Court of Gray County returned a verdict larger than had the special master. The condemnor filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds which it later amended. Thereafter, the superior court overruled the condemnor's amended motion for new trial and it is to this judgment that the condemnor now excepts.
Eugene Cook, Atty. Gen., Paul Miller, E. J. Summerour, Asst. Attys. Gen., George L. Jackson, Gray, for plaintiff in error.
J. Pierce Anderson, Gray, for defendant in error.
1. The usual general grounds of the condemnor's motion for new trial were expressly abandoned in its brief and will therefore not be considered.
2. Special grounds 1 and 2 of the amended motion for new trial complain of the refusal of the trial court to rule out certain evidence. C. B. Washburn and Corbin C. Roberts, as witnesses for the plaintiff, testified as to the value of certain property, each testified that other than the lot on which the condemnee's house was located, there was room for six other lots on the property being condemned and that each such lot had a market value of $1,000. On cross-examination it was shown that the first witness based his 'value' on lots 200 feet deep and the second witness on lots 'approximately 150 feet deep.' The condemnor then objected to their testimony and moved to exclude it because they were testifying as to the value of land not being taken since the 'right of way' being condemned was only 125 feet deep.
In Tift v. State Highway Dept., 99 Ga.App. 387, 392, 108 S.E.2d 724, 728, it was held that the trial court did not commit harmful error in excluding from evidence testimony as to value of land for subdivision purposes when it was not shown that the witness was limiting his valuation to the property being condemned. It was there said: 'We do not think the refusal to permit the answer to this question, under the circumstances in this case, was harmful to the condemnee and we do not think the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams Bros. Grocery Co. v. Blanton, 39148
...may consider all the evidence and then give the opinion of the expert such weight and credence as it desires. State Highway Dept. v. Wells, 102 Ga.App. 152, 115 S.E.2d 585; Southern Ry. Co. v. Richardson, 48 Ga.App. 25, 30, 172 S.E. 79; Sutton v. State Highway Dept., 103 Ga.App. 29(4), 118 ......
-
Central Container Corp. v. Westbrook
...knowledge, but such proof should be considered by the jury as going to the credibility of the witness' opinion. State Highway Dept. v. Wells, 102 Ga.App. 152(2), 115 S.E.2d 585. It appeared here that the police officer's opinion as to the speed of the defendant's truck was based on the posi......
-
State Highway Dept. v. Thomas, 39681
...of the land for subdivision use. Tift v. State Highway Department, 99 Ga.App. 387, 392, 108 S.E.2d 724; State Highway Department v. Wells, 102 Ga.App. 152, 153, 115 S.E.2d 585. Hence, when the trial judge determines from the evidence that there is a reasonable probability that land can be u......
-
Freedman v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, 40240
...of the witness by reason of lack of knowledge or for some other reason is not entitled to weight or credit. State Hwy. Dept. v. Wells, 102 Ga.App. 152(2), 115 S.E.2d 585. 2. The second special ground of the motion for new trial contends that an allegation that the property is being condemne......