Romeo v. United States

24 F.2d 527, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2107
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 5, 1928·No. No. 5131·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

In a petition for rehearing the defendants cite authorities to the proposition that, where objection is made to the competency of a witness to testify, the party offering the witness is not required to state what he expeets to prove by the witness. We find that the weight both of authority and reason is to the contrary (3 C. J. 829; Kischman v. Scott, 166 Mo. 214, 65 S. W. 1031; Hutchings v. Cobble, 30 Okl. 158, 120 P. 1013; Evans v. Smith, 50 Okl. 285, 150 P. 1096; Corcoran v. Poncini, 35 Ill. App. 130), and that in the federal courts the question is conclusively answered by the decision in Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U. S. 44, 31 S. Ct. 135, 55 L. Ed. 81, followed in Gustum v. Kradwell (C. C. A.) 270 F. 546.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

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

Romeo v. United States, 24 F.2d 527, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2107 (9th Cir. 1928).

24 F.2d 527 (Romeo v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hass v. United States
31 F.2d 13 (Ninth Circuit, 1929)