Stuart v. Harper
Decision Date | 13 June 1955 |
Citation | 133 Cal.App.2d 550,284 P.2d 505 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | Dorr STUART and Letty Stuart, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants, Appellants, v. Melvin Lawrence HARPER and Marjorie Harper, Defendants and Cross-Complainants, Respondents. Civ. 20781. |
William G. Junge, Hunter & Liljestrom, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Joseph C. Radzik, Los Angeles, Marlin H. Shirley, Pomona, for respondents.
This action for personal injuries and property damage arose out of an automobile collision which occurred on the westerly slope of the so-called Kellogg Hill between Pomona and Los Angeles, on February 10, 1953, at about 11:30 p. m. Mr. and Mrs. Stuart filed the original complaint; thereafter a cross-complaint was filed by Mr. and Mrs. Harper. There was a jury trial which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the Harpers and against the Stuarts in the sum of $7,700.00, from which the Stuarts now appeal.
As stated in appellants' brief,
The respondents' version of the accident is that the Stuarts had been eastbound .
Appellants present three issues, the first of which is that 'It was error for the trial court to refuse appellants' request to introduce Deputy Sheriff Jessup's notebook into evidence'. It is appellants' argument that the question of liability turned on the question 'Did Appellant turn around at the intersection of Via Verde or did he back his car across the center dividing strip and attempt to proceed westerly in that manner?'; and that the cross-complainants' case depended largely upon alleged admissions concerning this matter made by Stuart to the officers.
Officer Jessup was questioned concerning notes made at the time, and the fact (admitted by Jessup) that part of the notations 'were somewhat lighter in appearance', which might indicate that the notes had been 'doctored' after the event. Appellants contend that the notebook should have been admitted as impeaching evidence. In this same connection it appears that Mr. Stuart had been acquitted in a criminal trial at West Covina of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Maynard
...the motion for a new trial it might well have been sustained on appeal. Tuttle v. Crawford, 8 Cal.2d 126, 63 P.2d 1128; Stuart v. Harper, 133 Cal.App.2d 550, 284 P.2d 505; Tuderios v. Hertz Drivurself Stations, 70 Cal.App.2d 192, 160 P.2d 554; Rogers v. Interstate Transit Co., 212 Cal. 36, ......
- Bullock's Estate, In re