Driver v. Hartman
31 S.E. 899, 96 Va. 518, 1898 Va. LEXIS 125
Opinion
Opinion by the court.
Hnder the rule applicable in the consideration of this case the verdict of the jury cannot be disturbed. Code, sec. 8484.
The first and second assignments of error touching the action of the court in refusing to allow witnesses to answer certain questions cannot be considered, because the bills of exception do not show what the defendant expected or proposed to prove by either witness. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Pollard, 94 Va. 146.
For these reasons the writ of error cannot be awarded.
Writ of error refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Driver v. Hartman, 31 S.E. 899, 96 Va. 518, 1898 Va. LEXIS 125 (Va. 1898).
31 S.E. 899 (Driver v. Hartman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gosling v. Commonwealth
415 S.E.2d 870 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1992)
Consumers Ice Co. v. Jennings
42 S.E. 879 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1902)
Brock v. Bear
42 S.E. 307 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1902)
Jackson v. Commonwealth
36 S.E. 487 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1900)
Stoneman v. Commonwealth
25 Va. 887 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1874)