Lewis v. State ex rel. Daily

Indiana Court of Appeals

Lewis v. State ex rel. Daily

31 N.E. 375, 4 Ind. App. 504, 1892 Ind. App. LEXIS 155

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 1892

DocketNo. 628

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 N.E. 375 (Lewis v. State ex rel. Daily) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. State ex rel. Daily, 31 N.E. 375, 4 Ind. App. 504, 1892 Ind. App. LEXIS 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Black, J.

The appellant was prosecuted under the statute relating to bastardy. His motion for a new trial was overruled. The testimony was conflicting. Therefore we can not disturb the result reached in the trial court because of alleged insufficiency of evidence.

Two rulings of the court rejecting offers of proof are assigned as causes in the motion for a new trial.

It does not appear in either case that any question was asked the witness in relation to the matter embraced in the offer, and it does not appear to what facts the witness would have testified in either instance.

When it is intended to preserve in the record a question upon the refusal of the coui’t to admit testimony, a pertinent question should be propounded to the witness, and, upon the making of objection, the party propounding the question should state to the court what facts the witness will testify to in answer to the question. Judy v. Citizen, 101 Ind. 18; Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 Ind. 160 ; City of Evansville v. Thacker, 2 Ind. App. 870; Vurpillat v. Zehner, 2 Ind. App. 397.

The judgment is affirmed.

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