Williamson v. Peel

Supreme Court of Iowa

Williamson v. Peel

29 Iowa 458

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 15, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 Iowa 458 (Williamson v. Peel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williamson v. Peel, 29 Iowa 458 (iowa 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, J.

Before the trial of the case was commenced defendant made application for a continuance on account of the absence of a witness. He set out in his affidavit supporting the application the facts he expected to prove by the absent witness. The plaintiff admitted that the witness, if present, would testify to the facts as alleged in the affidavit. Upon the trial the affidavit, or such part of it as contained the statement of facts expected' to be proved by the absent witness, was read in evidence. [459]*459The plaintiff was permitted, against defendant’s objection, to prove, in order to impeach the witness, certain statements, to the effect that she knew nothing about the case nor the matter in controversy. The statements were made to the officer who served the subpoena upon her, and no foundation whatever was-laid for the admission of this impeaching evidence.

The evidence was improperly admitted. The affidavit, by admission of the plaintiff, was taken and considered as embodying the witness’ evidence. The credibility of a witness can be impeached by proof of contradictory statements, only after , laying a proper foundation by asking the witness in reference to the time and place thereof, etc. State v. Shanahan, 22 Iowa, 435; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 462; Strunk v. Ochiltree, 15 id. 179; Morrison v. Myers & Turner, 11 id. 538; Samuels v. Griffith, 13 id. 103; State v. Rhul, 8 id. 449. It may be said, that, in the case before us, it was impossible to have laid such a foundation. That is quite true, but it does not change the rule. To disregard the rule in a case of this character would be most unfair toward the witness and operate to defeat the ends of justice. The reason of the rule operates in this case as in all others, namely : the witness, probably, upon his attention being called to the statements, could give some explanation thereof. To enforce the rule in a case of this character can be no hardship upon the parties admitting affidavits to be read in place of the evidence of witnesses. If impeachment is necessary to the ends of justice in these cases, they must allow the evidence to be brought before the court in a manner that will permit it. The judgment of the circuit court must be

Reversed.

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

Beck, J.

Before the trial of the case was commenced defendant made application for a continuance on account of the absence of a witness. He set out in his affidavit supporting the application the facts he expected to prove by the absent witness. The plaintiff admitted that the witness, if present, would testify to the facts as alleged in the affidavit. Upon the trial the affidavit, or such part of it as contained the statement of facts expected' to be proved by the absent witness, was read in evidence. [459]*459The plaintiff was permitted, against defendant’s objection, to prove, in order to impeach the witness, certain statements, to the effect that she knew nothing about the case nor the matter in controversy. The statements were made to the officer who served the subpoena upon her, and no foundation whatever was-laid for the admission of this impeaching evidence.

The evidence was improperly admitted. The affidavit, by admission of the plaintiff, was taken and considered as embodying the witness’ evidence. The credibility of a witness can be impeached by proof of contradictory statements, only after , laying a proper foundation by asking the witness in reference to the time and place thereof, etc. State v. Shanahan, 22 Iowa, 435; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 462; Strunk v. Ochiltree, 15 id. 179; Morrison v. Myers & Turner, 11 id. 538; Samuels v. Griffith, 13 id. 103; State v. Rhul, 8 id. 449. It may be said, that, in the case before us, it was impossible to have laid such a foundation. That is quite true, but it does not change the rule. To disregard the rule in a case of this character would be most unfair toward the witness and operate to defeat the ends of justice. The reason of the rule operates in this case as in all others, namely : the witness, probably, upon his attention being called to the statements, could give some explanation thereof. To enforce the rule in a case of this character can be no hardship upon the parties admitting affidavits to be read in place of the evidence of witnesses. If impeachment is necessary to the ends of justice in these cases, they must allow the evidence to be brought before the court in a manner that will permit it. The judgment of the circuit court must be

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Iowa 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-peel-iowa-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack