Ware v. Childs
| Decision Date | 07 September 1909 |
| Citation | 82 Vt. 359,73 A. 994 |
| Parties | WARE v. CHILDS. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Windham County Court; W. W. Miles, Judge.
Assumpsit by Orrin O. Ware against Rollin S. Childs. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant excepted. Affirmed.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.
Herbert G. and Frank E. Barber, for plaintiff.
Arthur P. Carpenter, for defendant.
WATSON, J. One claim in defense was that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the goods in question because they were furnished by a partnership of which the plaintiff was one of three partners. The plaintiff denied that they were so furnished, and, when testifying in his own behalf, was asked in cross-examination questions, and made answers, as follows: ? To the last answer, except the first two words, defendant objected, as not responsive to the question. Whereupon, at the request of plaintiff's attorney, the part objected to was stricken from the record, and the jury instructed not to consider it as evidence. It is argued that the part excluded was made with the intention of confusing the jury as to the duration of the partnership, if one existed, and hence it was prejudicial to the defendant. If the use of such billheads tended to show the existence of a partnership at the time the goods were furnished, the fact that the portion of the answer objected to tended to show it still existing could do the defendant no harm.
Secondly, the defendant alleges error in the following admission of evidence: As bearing upon an issue raised by plaintiff's claim and defendant's denial that certain duebills had been transferred to other persons, the trial court allowed the plaintiff's attorney to inquire of the defendant on cross-examination whether he had ever transferred any duebills to other persons. It is a sufficient answer to defendant's claim of error on this point that the error, if any, was harmless to the defendant, for in his answer he strongly denied ever having transferred the duebills except in a certain solitary instance. It is entirely...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. Chesley York v. William W. Partridge's Estate
... ... choice made by the court, it was in the defendant's ... favor, and therefore cannot be availed of here. Ware ... v. Childs, 82 Vt. 359, 73 A. 994; Green v ... Stockwell, 87 Vt. 459, 89 A. 870 ... The ... foregoing discussion covers ... ...
-
In re Orzella C. Bean's Will
... ... source of his information, for they were thereby given ... opportunity to refute it. Ware v. Childs , ... 82 Vt. 359, 73 A. 994 ... The ... exceptions state that proponent's evidence tended to show ... that after ... ...
-
York v. Partridge's Estate
...was committed in the choice made by the court, it was in the defendant's favor, and therefore cannot be availed of here. Ware v. Childs, 82 Vt. 359, 73 A. 994; Green v. Stockwell, 87 Vt. 459, 89 A. The foregoing discussion covers all the questions of any importance raised at the trial and p......
-
Dionne v. Am. Express Co.
...Vt. 138, 47 Atl. 391; State v. Wilkins, 66 Vt. 1, 28 Atl. 323. See, further, Lucia v. Meech, 68 Vt. 175, 179, 34 Atl. 695; Ware v. Childs, 82 Vt. 359, 73 Atl. 994; Russ v. Good, 90 Vt. 236, 97 Atl. The defendant offered certain instructions contained in a book of rules and instructions issu......