Case ID: so2d_158/html/0562-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dante DINO d/b/a Dino Construction Company, Appellant, v. Nicholas P. O’DAWE, Appellee.
    No. 63-141.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    Dec. 13, 1963.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1964.
    
      Louis Winter and Seymour London, Miami, for appellant.
    Ellis S. Rubin and Max A. Goldfarb, Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing the plaintiff to read into evidence the deposition of a witness. The controlling procedural provision is found in Rule 1.21(d) (3), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. “The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: * * * 3, that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; * * ”. The appellant has failed to show an abuse of the discretion which the rule reposes in the trial judge. Cf., Driscoll v. Morris, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 314, 316.

Affirmed.