Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0250-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "VICKERY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 314
    KOLLER BROS. v. JOLLS
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 5907.
    Decided Nov. 16, 1925
    480. EVIDENCE — Witness cannot refresh memory from copies of the pleadings.
   VICKERY, J.

This cause arose in the Municipal Court of Cleveland. Said court permitted Ernest Jolles when on the stand, to refresh his memory from a copy of the statement of defense used-in' the trial.

Note: — Sullivan, J., dissented in this decision of the court:

Attorneys — Sanders, Monahan & Sanders for Koller Bros.; Hedrick & Hedrick for Jolls; all of Cleveland.

Counsel for Koller Bros, objected to this copy being shown to witness. The Court overruled this objection, and counsel saved the exception.

The Court of Appeals held:

' It is prejudicial error to permit a witness to refresh his memory from copies of the pleadings.

Judgment reversed.