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

Y. p. g y. 4. Co, q Nev. 154. :: .
Ii It we're desired to supply
the testimony Of, experts as to
whether certain n doubtful items
were necessary for the Opey-
alton Of the road. or were. for better
ments. fixed charges or useless expen-
ditures they should have been spec!
fed So that the court and jury couM
have properly considered them. The
witness .,iaestratti did not claim to be
an expert other than as an accountant.
but il it had not been shown that he
or the witness Hiskey were the mos;
experienced and eminent railroad
managers it still would have been in
competent for either of them. whether
| on behalf of the State or the defend
ant, boil! Of which shcrld be gov
erned bv the same rules that apply 20
other litigants. to gave. their opinions
on matters Of law. which are for tn ;
court. OF regarding commonly known
facts concerning which the court aud
jury could determine as. we'll as they.
The duty of the accountant Is TO save
the time Of the court by striking to-
tails and balances Of such items as are
relevant but not to give his, iud gment
as 80 what those items are without
bringing them to the attention of the
court Sec 81 of our Practice Act
being Sec 1922. New Conpi Laws
Is specific enough to exclude this opin-
ion testimony. 1t provides that there
shall he no eTidelce Of the contents
of writing other than the writing it
self. except.
y nj had
lost nr dest royad; in which case proof
OF the less or destruction shall first
be made. Second Wien the original
is in the possession OF the party
against whom The evidence is offered,
and he tails TO- produce it after q
reasona bic notice ,Third--When the
original is record or other document
in the custody of public officer. or
officer OF a corporation Fourth
When fhe original has been recorded
and a certified copy Of the record Is
made Evidence by statute. Fifth
. When the original consists Of hume :
Gus accounts or other documents
which cannot be examined IN court
, without great loss OF time and the
evidence sought by them is only the
, general result Of the whole.
The rule at common law. or IL
f States without his statutory enact
, ment istthe' s.otle: f-s 4N
. l. 49,, ! Greeni tV. oS g.. -.-
, Burton v Briggs s. L. ) l36.
. The words 'oniy the general resiil
{ OF the whol7" - urally limit the ans
, wer of the witness to the whole o.
{ the accounts "a NO vouchers or'to tn
: whole. OF, particular accounts, tabular
, ions or items that are specified, an.
{ do not indicate that he may use nj:
/. Judgment IN rejecting mart OF thes.
without Designating them. In Sta',
, v Rhoades, Ney 376. this cour
[ held that it was proper to ask an eX
I pcrt VINO had investigated the &C
9 counts in the State Tfeasurer's office
r what vas the result Of your OK
i. aminatiGu as to tae amount OF none
! witch should haze beer in the treas
g ury on the tontil day of Septemhe
s 1865: =" N this a,,estion the wor;
r should" has IC. ujta' a different mean
Il inc am. limitation than it had in tn
q answer OF the witness Maestrattt. Tb
II amount that should have beer in TIL
o State Treasury t-as simply the dii
i fe.erce sh3wn TX the books betwee
\ all -t,a rer,.ip'zs ar al, the disburSt
+. Elenls .rat lid rGi .rnply that the wi
e ,iasT KS = EXERCISE his Judgment i
iezclufiins ap- fling II is We
!, established rule tina: the opinions {
experts can not be received in regar
= TO matters of inquiry. that may be pr;
= sumed 10 lie within the experienC
n and knowledge Of all men of averas
"a education. moving in the ordinar
- walks. OF lite. When the facts can b
i placed before the Jury and they are. {
10 such a nature that jurors general
~ are competent to form opinions an
~ draw references from; them. then tn
:. Bile. --. .a.
Re Rogers Expert Tes. 26.
~ Franklin Ins. Co. V. Gruver 100 P
n St. 81:
~ White y Ballou. 3 Allen. 4OS:
10 ee' Hovey Y. SAWYER. 5 Allen. 554:
II Perkins V. Augusta. etc Banking CO
10 !" Grey :l2:
r. Clark &. Fisher. Paige Oh. II
" = C. 4" Am -Decis 402.:i
40 Monroe Y. Latin. 25 Kan s5
or :3.: Peop'e " Mullen. Sc, N. Y. 40,
H hardt rs Md 1878:
"a state V. Anderson, 100 Orego
IS '4AS ..'. -e'.'-..
=: Ncn England Glass Co. v. Love
u.s. Cnsh (Mass.) 319:
" Shsfter V. Eveans. SIS Cal. 80:
~ City OF Chicago v. McGiven. Is |
NJ :e.:
CO Naushtnn V. STAG Mo. Az
In. 2,,.
r. Cook y. State, - ~ j. Law. "a
he s:o:
&c billiard v State 81 Miss 1858:
MT GHrik & Pacific Y. r. Co. ~ M
en- "a:
TO Concord Railroad Co. v. Gree
ne Foster IN. H. 237. 243:
OF Nashville etc. r. r. Co. v. Carr
s.: Tenn. 81
Or Linn v. Sigsbee IL I'll. IS:
llv EeerhauSen " Chicago etc r.