Case ID: la_108/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Monroe, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 14,158.
    A. J. Pirdy, Husband, vs. Florinda Phelps, Wife.
    Syllabus.
    Where, in a suit for divorce, it appears that the evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff, when considered in connection with that offered by the defendant, is insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for, and would still be insufficient even though certain evidence, offered on the trial to impeach one of the witnesses who testified for the defendant, had not been excluded, it would serve no useful purpose to remand the case, and the judgment rejecting the plaintiff’s demands will be affirmed.
    APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans— King, J.
    
    
      Dennis M. Sholars, Boatner, Dodds & Boatner, and Gabriel Fernandez, for plaintiff, appellant.
    
      Horace B. Upton and John It. Upton, for defendant, appellee.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Monroe, J.

The charges made in the petition should, if true, be easily proved. Instead of attempting to prove them, the plaintiff, no objection being made, offered evidence as to a specific fact, which he had not alleged or referred to in his petition. That evidence, consisting of the uncorroborated and contradicted testimony of a witness whose character is impeached, not only by other witnesses but by the very testimony that he, himself, gives, is insufficient for the purpose for which it was offered, and is not materially strengthened by the testimony, given by the wife of the man said to have been implicated as to the latter’s admissions, not with regard to the particular act in question, but as to his general relations with the defendant. It is said that certain testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff to impeach the testimony of the man last above mentioned, who denies the act and the admissions charged against him* was improperly excluded, and that his testimony, in view of the position in which he was placed, was not' io be relied on. The correctness and force of this view may be conceded, but the testimony upon which the plaintiff relies is insufficient, without that particular contradiction, to make out a case entitling him to the relief prayed for. It would therefore subserve no useful purpose to remand the case. And the judgment appealed from is,, accordingly, affirmed.