The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-06-02

I be without prejudice to the defend
ant. ....
(S) Plaintiff upon cross-examination
was asked whether she had received
visits from certain men other than the
defendant at different times; one time
being about our months before the
child was born, and another at a time
after the child was born. Held, that
while defendant had a right to a full
cross-examination in any matter that
might relate to the paternity of the
child, yet there was no prejudice in
excluding questions enumerated, the
| question of ross-examination being
largely discretionary with the trial
court.
CO. Certain questions were asked
the plaintiff upon cross-examination
and excluded by the trial court. Held,
that the questions were irrelevant for
reasons stated in the opinion.
Go The mother of four children is
competent to testify that the last child
born to her had the appearance Of
being an eight months child.
CID Certain questions asked upon
cross-examination of the witness
Blount were probably immaterial but
their answer in nc name prejudiced
the defendant, 49,.
(12) One of the farm hands was
asked whether he had noticed any
acts of familiarity between the plain
tiff and defendant, and whether de-
PENDANT had acted in a loving manner
toward the plaintiff. Held, that the
questions were properly excluded be-
cause they allowed the witness to put
his w construction upon the actions
Of the parties. The correct procedure
was for the witness to state what he
had seen and heard, and to describe
the actions of the parties.
(13) The plaintiff was asked
whether or not she had told her sister
anything about her approaching mar
riage. Ordinarily such a question is
material but each case must rest upon
the peculiar circumstances attending
and the matter rests in the sound
discretion Of the trial court which will
not be disturbed except for abuse. No
abuse of such discretion Is shown IN
! this instance.
14) Plaintiff was asked to explain
what she meant by certain statements
which she had made to the defendant.
While, ordinarily a witness is not al
lowed~to place her own Interpretation
upon language used by her, circum-
stances may be such that an explana-
ton is not only allowable but neces-
sary. This matter also rests in the
) sound discretion of the trial court and
I we see no abuse in this instance.
(15) Plaintiff was asked how she
felt after the defendant refused 10
marry her. The question is some
what too broad and should have been
confined to damages oc~casioned by the
breach of promise, but the record dis
poses that it was SO understood by
all parties in this instance and there
was no prejudice in allowing her to
answer
(16) A certain question was ruled
out by the trial court while plaintiff
was being cross examined, but the
same question was later asked and
answered without objection. Held. nc
error.
GO The defendant claims that the
evidence is not sufficient to sustain
II verdict, but it is held for reasons
stated in the opinion, that there is
enough evidence of an implied promise
to marry to sustain the Judgment, NJ
particular form Of words is essential
to show the offer and acceptance j
marriage and the question whether OF
not there was such promise is a
question OF fact for the jury.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appealed from the district court OF
Towner county.
CoWan, j.
Affirmed.
T. .. McClory of Devils Lake. and
Bangss Cooley s. Hamilton Of Grand
Forks, attorneys for appellant.
r. z. Cuthbert of Devils Lake, and
!. II. Sennett of Cando, N. D., at
torf1eys for respondent.
Opinion of the court BY Burke. 4
\ Spaldlng, O. j., dissenting.