Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-05-30

received them and thus leave the jury
to draw their own conclusions. and
wherever the facts can be stated it y
not to he departed from" Cornell V.
Green 10 s. & R. 16.
In Campbell V. Rusch 3 Iowa, 337. e
was said: In answering this Ques-
ton the witness was not communicate
| ing facts. but his own conclusions,
drawn from the language used in the
! written instrument. This was not per-
| MISSILE. It was the special duty of
the jury under the Instructions of the
court to draw conclusions and for
! the witness to state facts The ex-
/ ceptions to the rule are to be found
| in these cases where a witness speaks
OF matters of science. trade and few
others of the, same character, but they
cannot Ne extended to cases like the
! present
Again in the Lime Rock Bank v.
Eewett, so Me 267. and Lawsou's
Elk & Opion. Ev 1856: 1T was wholly
!: inadmissibIe for the witness to state
bis differences and presumptions arts
! ing from what appeared upon the
books BY the we'll established rules
Of law these we're for the Jury"
= Tie exception to the rule as pro-
vided by the statute and the decisions
! lies iE allowing the accountant to
state the result Of arithmetfcal calcu-
| iatioDs that could be- made by the
court When the accounts are numer-
GUS the convenience and expedition OF
| trials demands the admission of the
Testimony Of competent witnesses who
| r. 10. III
state summarily the, net result Re-
sarding this there is collation. of de.
| cisions in e Wig Ey Sec. 1890. In
Adams Y. Board. 81 Fla. 283. it was
ksaid: The witness in answer to the
question detailed at length divers facts
that he asserted to be shown by the
records examined by him. There was
no error in excluding the eviednce
The contents % records can net be
ishown by pacol where the record It.
self is extant and accessible" In
State =. Brady 100 Iowa. 1871, tabulat
ed statement prepared by an agent Q.
the railroad compan ME from the rec
ords showing the sale IF tickets at q
station during the yCHr was held e
have been properly 2. ,itted. It was
shown on the trial +. 1T an offer O.
S200,000 for the road had been made to
the general manager in 1900 by resi-
dents Of Austin or that he vas aSket
whether the company would sell fol
that amount, The witnesses who tes
titled that they made the offer did mo-
have that amount of money and di.
; not make it with any ability or ex
peetation of buying the road for them
selves, but persuant ~ Statement
irladt hy man namei J. F. Mitchell
who was not present or called as wit
ness but who had previously said t,
, J A Miller that me had parties, goo
responsible parties, to take it at 5000
: I GOD. There was no proof that Nit
cheIi Or the others to whom he refer
[ red had this amount Of money or wer
able to buy the road nor that the.
: knew anything regarding its value no
that the general manager or any on
r with authority in reply to the offe
said anything in the nature of decla.
= | alton against interest. Objection AM
, | exception were made to testimony 0
; the offer on the ground that it "di
; not tend to prove the value in 1901.
: Counsel tor the State suggested tina
I the exception is too narrow 1t ma
have been intended to object only fo
: The reason that the Offer was made i
/ 1900 instead of 1901. but it is state
4 more broadly as not tending to prov
{ the value of the road in the latter yea
i the one in which it was essential I
> determine the valuation as a basl
q for the taxes sought to- be recovered
e Ii the offer was Suficier
y to prove the value of the road i
g 1900. in the. absence Of any contraf
t testimony that value would be presun
' ID to continue during 1901. HoWev<
d We believe that under the circun
; stances shown the offer was not suf
i Gent to show the value in 1901 or &
any other time and that the objectiu
ought to have been sustained
Hammersmith v. Avery. Is New. q
ii was said: THE evidence of til
plaintiff Ito the offer made him Il
the property should have been rejec
ed. because. among other reasons, Ii
J.. person making the. offer may n,
have known the value Of the prope
!. ty,'' and quoting from , Fowler
Com'rs. s Allen. &c. the value OF q
I. offer depends upon too many conside
!; ations to allow it to be used ~ te
n of the worth of property" We do y
wish to be understood as holding tn,
n. cases may not arise. in which It Il ps
missable to prove an offer. or the de
II. laration of q party in interest or 4
thOrity iRa repjy. to one. but when,
here, 1t is not shown that the persoa
u. who made them had the means
meet them. or knowledge Of the val,
y. of the property. We see no princip
upon which they may be consider,
:" admissible -
Sharp V. u s.. 1871. u s. 34l a
other cases cited in appellants brit
o. The district court erred in refusil
defendants Instruction No. Z. folio
y. ing: You are instructed that In Z
certafning the net income, if any.
~, the Nevada Central Railroad. for d
year 1901. or the net loss. IL any. "
should add an taxes maid hv d
X COMPANY for that wear Ia tho 9TH