State v. Howington, 3 Div. 852
| Decision Date | 19 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 852 |
| Citation | 109 So.2d 676,268 Ala. 574 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Alabama v. James Q. HOWINGTON. |
Robt. H. Jones, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. B. Nix, Jr., Evergreen, for appellant.
Horne, Webb & Tucker, Atmore, and Edwin C. Page, Jr., Evergreen, for appellee.
This is a condemnation proceeding brought by the state pursuant to Code 1940, Tit. 19, Chap. 1, to acquire for public highway purposes (§ 14, Tit. 19) a right-of-way 300 feet wide across a 40-acre tract of land belonging to James Q. Howington, appellee, located in Conecuh County. The right-of-way is for use in the construction of a non-access highway as a part of the new interstate highway system. The proceeding originated in the probate court of Conecuh County. From an order of condemnation there made the state appealed to the circuit court of Conecuh County where a trial de novo (§ 17, Tit. 19) was had before a jury. The parties stipulated as to the regularity of the proceedings in the probate court and further stipulated that the sole issue to be submitted to the jury was the amount of damages and compensation, if any, to which the landowner was entitled as a result of the condemnation of his lands as a right-of-way for the non-access public highway. The jury returned a verdict fixing the amount of damages and compensation at $1,000. Judgment and an order of condemnation followed. The state filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. This appeal was then brought by the state pursuant to Code 1940, Tit. 19, § 23.
There are 17 assignments of error. All of them charge error in the trial court's rulings on the admission of evidence. None of the assignments specifically questions the excessiveness of the jury's award.
Assignments 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 charge error in overruling the state's objections to questions to three of its witnesses (appraisers) on cross-examination, asking how much said witnesses were being paid per day for appearing in court as witnesses for the state. The state recognizes the rule that 'it is always competent on cross-examination to make such interrogation of a witness as would tend to test his interest, bias or prejudice or to illustrate or impeach the accuracy of his testimony.' Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Decatur Land Co., 258 Ala. 607, 612, 64 So.2d 594, 598. It is contended, however, that the questions, being asked a number of times, constituted 'a direct appeal to the emotions and prejudices of the jury' and were 'highly detrimental to the plaintiff's cause in this case and that said questions should have been confined to whether or not they were employed by the plaintiff in this case and not permitted to go into the details of how much they were being paid.' We are unable to agree. As stated in the Decatur Land Co. case, supra, 258 Ala. at page 612, 64 So.2d at page 598:
* * *'
Also, it is a well-established rule that the latitude and extent of cross-examination is a matter which of necessity rests largely within the sound discretion of the trial court, and rulings with respect thereto will not be revised on appeal except in extreme cases of abuse. Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Decatur Land Co., supra. It has been held that the cross-examination of a witness may even pertain to irrelevant and immaterial matters as bearing on the memory, accuracy, credibility, interest or sincerity of the witness. Nelson v. Johnson, 264 Ala. 422, 427, 88 So.2d 358; Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Decatur Land Co., supra.
We do not think there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bendorf v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengeselischaft
...219 Md. 178, 148 A.2d 399, 401 (1959); Hostert v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 250 Iowa 253, 93 N.W.2d 773 (1958); State v. Howington, 268 Ala. 574, 109 So.2d 676 (1959). Plaintiff was allowed to show that the expert witness received $95.00 per hour for services rendered in this case. Thi......
-
Favor v. State
...Ball v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 31 (1976), cert. denied, Ala., 337 So.2d 39. The Alabama Supreme Court in State v. Howington, 268 Ala. 574, 575, 109 So.2d 676 (1959), "(T)he latitude and extent of cross-examination is a matter which of necessity rests largely within the sound discreti......
-
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington
...trial court, and rulings with respect thereto will not be revised on appeal except in extreme cases of abuse." State v. Howington, 268 Ala. 574, 575, 109 So.2d 676, 677 (1959). McNutt testified on direct examination that Southern would have responded if Washington and his wife had actually ......
-
Houston v. State
...of the trial court, and rulings with respect thereto will not be revised on appeal except in extreme cases of abuse. State v. Howington, 268 Ala. 574, 109 So.2d 676 (1959); Housing Authority of City of Decatur v. Decatur Land Co. [258 Ala. 607, 64 So.2d 594 (1953)]; Holland v. State, 424 So......