Griffin v. Mo. Pac. Rd.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Griffin v. Mo. Pac. Rd.

298 S.W.2d 55, 227 Ark. 312, 1957 Ark. LEXIS 314

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 4, 1957

Docket5-1168

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 298 S.W.2d 55 (Griffin v. Mo. Pac. Rd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin v. Mo. Pac. Rd., 298 S.W.2d 55, 227 Ark. 312, 1957 Ark. LEXIS 314 (Ark. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Sam Robinson, Associate Justice.

In this appeal, the appellant states his points as follows: “1. This appeal is taken by appellant for tbe sole purpose of determining whether or not the trial court had the right to arbitrarily take from the appellant’s attorney the right to qualify the Jury on voir dire examination; the right to examine the jury as to disqualification; challenge for cause and peremptory challenge and to examine them individually or in groups of three. 2. To determine ■whether the trial court erred in not allowing appellant’s attorney the privilege of reading before the jury and into the record that part of his complaint touching upon ‘The Federal Employers’ Liability Act’ and the ‘Safety Appliance Acts.’ 3. To determine if the trial court had the right and power to permit the appellant’s wife to testify in behalf of the appellee to impeach or discredit her husband’s testimony.”

There is no abstract of the voir dire examination, and no abstract of the testimony or of the opening statement. Hence, from appellant’s brief, we cannot determine whether there was error. It has been pointed out repeatedly that this court will not search the record; that it is wholly impractical for the seven members of this court to read the one record. Commissioner of Labor C. R. Thornbrough v. Danco Construction Company, 226 Ark. 797, 294 S. W. 2d 336.

Affirmed.

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

Sam Robinson, Associate Justice.

In this appeal, the appellant states his points as follows: “1. This appeal is taken by appellant for tbe sole purpose of determining whether or not the trial court had the right to arbitrarily take from the appellant’s attorney the right to qualify the Jury on voir dire examination; the right to examine the jury as to disqualification; challenge for cause and peremptory challenge and to examine them individually or in groups of three. 2. To determine ■whether the trial court erred in not allowing appellant’s attorney the privilege of reading before the jury and into the record that part of his complaint touching upon ‘The Federal Employers’ Liability Act’ and the ‘Safety Appliance Acts.’ 3. To determine if the trial court had the right and power to permit the appellant’s wife to testify in behalf of the appellee to impeach or discredit her husband’s testimony.”

There is no abstract of the voir dire examination, and no abstract of the testimony or of the opening statement. Hence, from appellant’s brief, we cannot determine whether there was error. It has been pointed out repeatedly that this court will not search the record; that it is wholly impractical for the seven members of this court to read the one record. Commissioner of Labor C. R. Thornbrough v. Danco Construction Company, 226 Ark. 797, 294 S. W. 2d 336.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 S.W.2d 55, 227 Ark. 312, 1957 Ark. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-mo-pac-rd-ark-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack