Capital Traction Co. v. Hoover

D.C. Circuit

Capital Traction Co. v. Hoover

45 App. D.C. 247, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2679

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1916

DocketNo. 2896

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 App. D.C. 247 (Capital Traction Co. v. Hoover) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Capital Traction Co. v. Hoover, 45 App. D.C. 247, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2679 (D.C. Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Anderson

of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, who sat with the Court in the hearing and determination of this appeal in the place of Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, delivered the opinion of the Court:

Without reviewing the evidence in detail in this opinion, it is sufficient to say that the request for a peremptory instruction, either upon the claim of variance between the pleadings and proof, or upon the claim of insufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, is wholly without support, and that the instruction granted by the learned justice below and constituting the subject of appellant’s second assignment was clearly proper, as was also his refusal to grant the instruction involved in the fourth assignment.

2. The only other question involved in the appeal is that raised by the first assignment of error, relating to the refusal of the learned trial justice to permit counsel for appellant to see and inspect a.paper (exhibit Jackson 2), which was shown by counsel for appellee to the witness Jackson, while upon the witness stand and in the presence of the jury, and identified and also read by the witness, but which was not offered in evidence. The record shows that this occurred at the close of the redirect [253]*253examination of the witness (rec. 17-8), and therefore could not have had the effect of refreshing the witness’s recollection or otherwise prejudicing appellant in the direct, cross, or redirect examination of the witness. Moreover, the brief recross-examination of the witness by appellant was of a nature which could not have been affected thereby. While, therefore, no prejudicial error can be predicated in this case upon the failure to permit appellant’s counsel to inspect the paper in question, the correct and safer practice is to permit opposing counsel to see any paper shown to, and read by, a witness while upon the stand, though such is not required where the paper is merely identified, and not read, by the witness. Arnold v. Chesebrough, 30 Fed. 145, Calderon v. O’Donahue, 47 Fed. 39. A door for great abuse would be opened if papers could be shown to, and read by, a witness, and the opposite party kept in ignorance of their contents.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

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

Mr. Justice Anderson

of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, who sat with the Court in the hearing and determination of this appeal in the place of Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, delivered the opinion of the Court:

Without reviewing the evidence in detail in this opinion, it is sufficient to say that the request for a peremptory instruction, either upon the claim of variance between the pleadings and proof, or upon the claim of insufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, is wholly without support, and that the instruction granted by the learned justice below and constituting the subject of appellant’s second assignment was clearly proper, as was also his refusal to grant the instruction involved in the fourth assignment.

2. The only other question involved in the appeal is that raised by the first assignment of error, relating to the refusal of the learned trial justice to permit counsel for appellant to see and inspect a.paper (exhibit Jackson 2), which was shown by counsel for appellee to the witness Jackson, while upon the witness stand and in the presence of the jury, and identified and also read by the witness, but which was not offered in evidence. The record shows that this occurred at the close of the redirect [253]*253examination of the witness (rec. 17-8), and therefore could not have had the effect of refreshing the witness’s recollection or otherwise prejudicing appellant in the direct, cross, or redirect examination of the witness. Moreover, the brief recross-examination of the witness by appellant was of a nature which could not have been affected thereby. While, therefore, no prejudicial error can be predicated in this case upon the failure to permit appellant’s counsel to inspect the paper in question, the correct and safer practice is to permit opposing counsel to see any paper shown to, and read by, a witness while upon the stand, though such is not required where the paper is merely identified, and not read, by the witness. Arnold v. Chesebrough, 30 Fed. 145, Calderon v. O’Donahue, 47 Fed. 39. A door for great abuse would be opened if papers could be shown to, and read by, a witness, and the opposite party kept in ignorance of their contents.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 App. D.C. 247, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-traction-co-v-hoover-cadc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack