Eastman v. Means

California Court of Appeal

Eastman v. Means

242 P. 1089, 75 Cal. App. 537, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 61

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 11, 1925

DocketDocket No. 5313.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 P. 1089 (Eastman v. Means) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eastman v. Means, 242 P. 1089, 75 Cal. App. 537, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

CASHIN, J.

An action to recover damages for injuries which, according to the findings of the trial court, were wilfully inflicted by appellant upon respondent, the latter being a minor. Judgment was entered against appellant and the appeal taken therefrom.

As a ground for reversal it is contended that the court erred in permitting the father and mother of the minor to testify that following the injuries alleged certain conversations were had by them by means of the telephone, which, if the person with whom they conversed was the appellant, were admissible as evidence of admissions then made by the latter.

The witnesses mentioned and appellant were all residents of the city of Los Angeles, and it appears from the testimony that the person with whom the conversations were had answered a telephone call to the residence of appellant, was addressed by the name of appellant, and that the answers to the inquiries of the witnesses referred to the transaction involved in the action. This testimony was sufficient prima facie to prove the identity of appellant with the person addressed and was properly admitted (Union Construction Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 163 Cal. 298, 307 [125 Pac. 242]). In addition to the foregoing appellant, while a witness on his own behalf, admitted the fact of the conversations.

No error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

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

CASHIN, J.

An action to recover damages for injuries which, according to the findings of the trial court, were wilfully inflicted by appellant upon respondent, the latter being a minor. Judgment was entered against appellant and the appeal taken therefrom.

As a ground for reversal it is contended that the court erred in permitting the father and mother of the minor to testify that following the injuries alleged certain conversations were had by them by means of the telephone, which, if the person with whom they conversed was the appellant, were admissible as evidence of admissions then made by the latter.

The witnesses mentioned and appellant were all residents of the city of Los Angeles, and it appears from the testimony that the person with whom the conversations were had answered a telephone call to the residence of appellant, was addressed by the name of appellant, and that the answers to the inquiries of the witnesses referred to the transaction involved in the action. This testimony was sufficient prima facie to prove the identity of appellant with the person addressed and was properly admitted (Union Construction Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 163 Cal. 298, 307 [125 Pac. 242]). In addition to the foregoing appellant, while a witness on his own behalf, admitted the fact of the conversations.

No error being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

Tyler, P. J., and Knight, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 P. 1089, 75 Cal. App. 537, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastman-v-means-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack