Burch v. Wade

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burch v. Wade

198 S.E. 563, 58 Ga. App. 385, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 269

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 9, 1938

Docket26944

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 198 S.E. 563 (Burch v. Wade) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burch v. Wade, 198 S.E. 563, 58 Ga. App. 385, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 269 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

“The right of either party to a suit to subject to a thorough and sifting cross-examination the witnesses called to testify against him, is distinctly declared in § 3864 of the Code [§ 38-1705]. It is a substantial right, the preservation of which is essential to a proper administration of justice, and extends to all matters within the knowledge of the witness, the disclosure of which is material to the controversy.” News Publishing Co. v. Butler, 95 Ga. 559 (22 S. E. 282). Hence, in a suit for damages for assault and battery, where the plaintiff testified that the defendant assaulted him with a blackjack, inflicting severe injuries about his body, and exhibited to the jury as evidence thereof certain scars on his arms, legs, and about his head, it was harmful error to refuse to permit counsel for the defendant, on cross-examination, to question the plaintiff concerning the scars, and as to whether before the alleged assault he had suffered any injury or received any scars about his person, it being the defendant’s contention, sustained by witnesses introduced, that the defendant did not strike the plaintiff with a blackjack but only with his fist, which was not capable of producing such injuries, and that after the fight the plaintiff did not appear to be seriously injured.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Guerry, J.

“The right of either party to a suit to subject to a thorough and sifting cross-examination the witnesses called to testify against him, is distinctly declared in § 3864 of the Code [§ 38-1705]. It is a substantial right, the preservation of which is essential to a proper administration of justice, and extends to all matters within the knowledge of the witness, the disclosure of which is material to the controversy.” News Publishing Co. v. Butler, 95 Ga. 559 (22 S. E. 282). Hence, in a suit for damages for assault and battery, where the plaintiff testified that the defendant assaulted him with a blackjack, inflicting severe injuries about his body, and exhibited to the jury as evidence thereof certain scars on his arms, legs, and about his head, it was harmful error to refuse to permit counsel for the defendant, on cross-examination, to question the plaintiff concerning the scars, and as to whether before the alleged assault he had suffered any injury or received any scars about his person, it being the defendant’s contention, sustained by witnesses introduced, that the defendant did not strike the plaintiff with a blackjack but only with his fist, which was not capable of producing such injuries, and that after the fight the plaintiff did not appear to be seriously injured.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E. 563, 58 Ga. App. 385, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burch-v-wade-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack