Case ID: la_17/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Maetin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Turner v. Latorre & Al.
    Where a witness is asked how he knew certain facts about S. B., and answers that he was acquainted with the circumstances of S. R. ever since he could recollect, it will be sufficient to account for the facts stated.
    Where one of the jurors becomes interested in the case during the trial, it is good ground to award a new trial.
    Appeal from the court of the first district.
    This is an action to recover seven slaves of which the plaintiff, Sarah Turner, alleges she is the owner, who were taken from the State of Georgia where she always resided, brought to this State without her knowledge or consent, and in fraud of her lights, and are now in the possession of the defendants who refuse to deliver them up although amicably requested to do so. She prays that said slaves be restored to her and that she have judgment for them or their value and for the value of their services.
    
      The defendants demanded that the plaintiff exhibit her titles to said slaves, to which she replied that she resided in Georgia where she owned said slaves, where title to them can be shown by parol, and that she be allowed to prove title by parol evidence.
    The defendants set up title’by notarial act. Commissions issued to [75] the State of Georgia to take the testimony of witnesses. On the trial certain depositions were objected to and rejected by the court. The bills of exception are stated in the opinion of this court.
    One of the jurymen in the course of the trial discovered that the slaves in contest, or some of them were liable in the hands of one of his debtors for his debt, and issued execution against them before the verdict was given. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Bartlette for the plaintiff.
    
      jloa & Canon for the defendants.
   Maetin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff and appellant has called our attention to two bills of exception taken to the rejection of two depositions which she had taken and offered in evidence.

1. The defendants’ counsel objected to the reading of the first deposition on the ground that the first cross-interrogatory filed by the defendant, Latorre, in the following words: “ how did you come to the knowledge of each and every one of the facts above stated was not sufficiently answered by the witness in saying, “ I became acquainted with the facts as stated in my answers to the direct interrogatories, from my personal knowledge; having been acquainted with the circumstances of Sarah Turner ever since I can recollect.” The court sustained the objection on the ground “ that a general acquaintance of many years standing is not a means of accounting for the knowledge of particular facts.”

2. The second deposition was objected to on the ground that the first cross-interrogatory on behalf of Latorre was not sufficiently answered by the witness in saying, “ I became acquainted with the facts stated in my answers to the direct interrogarles from my own knowledge, to the best of my [76] belief.” The objection was sustained by the court.

It appears to us the court erred. We have carefully examined the answers to the direct interrogatories in both cases and compared them with the answer to the first cross-interrogatory complained of; and which have appeared to us sufficient. If the defendant thought he might have been benefited, by more particular and detailed answers, he should have endeavored to obtain them by a new commission, with more definite interrogatories propounded.

A new trial was prayed for by the plaintiff and appellant on the ground that proper and legal testimony was rejected as stated in the foregoing bills of exception; and also that of one of the jury becoming interested during the trial, by causing an execution to be levied on some of the slaves in contestation in the present suit.

There were other grounds set out in the application for a new trial; but either of those above stated, appear to be sufficient to support the motion and cause the case to be remanded.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be annulled, avoided, and reversed; the verdict set aside; and the case remanded for further proceedings with directions to the judge a quo to admit in evidence the two depositions stated in the foregoing bills of ex-ooption ; the defendants and appellees paying the costs of the appeal.