Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-06-05

|used WAS proyoked by the conduct Oh
the witness and was without pleJu'
dice to the defendant.
4 ), g. Certain instructions re-
auested Of the trial court examiner
and held. that their refusal was NOV
error as they we're substantially COW
cred in other portions of the charee'
G) Certain instructions given ny
the trial court examined, and held 10
be without prejudice to the defenaa't'
81 Plaintiff upon c~ross'exam'na'
tion was asked whether h had re-
ceiyed visits from certain men other
than the defendant at different times,
one time being about four months De'
fore the child was born, and another
at a time after the child was Dorh.
Held. that while defendant had a
right to a full cross-examination in any
matter that might relate to the pa
ternity of the child, yet there was no
prejudice in excluding questions
Grated, the Qeustion of cross-eXamlna'
ton being largely discretionary with
the trial court.
(9) Certain questions were asked
the plaintiff upon cross-examlhatlon
and excluded by the trial court. HELD
that the questions were irrelevant 1or
reasons stated in the opinion.
C10) 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.
u1) Certain questions asked upon
cross.examination Of the witness
Blount were probably immaterial but
Their answer in no manner p~reJudlc'
ed the defendant.
uN 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
towards the plaintiff. Held, that the
questions were properly excluded be
cause they allowed the witness to put
his own construction upon the actions
of the parties. The correct proceed
ure was for the witness to state what
he had seen and heard, and to describe
the actions of the parties.
U3) The plaintiff was asked
whether or not she had told her Sis
ter anything about her approaching
marriage. Ordinarily such a ques'
ton 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 discre.
ton Is shown in this instance.
u4) Plaintiff vas asked 10 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 we see no abuse in this instance.
Q5) Plaintiff was asked how she
felt after the defendant refused to
marry her. The question is some
what too broad and should have been
confined to damages occasioned by
the breach Of promise, but the record
disposes2 that It was so understood
by all parties in this instance and
there was no prejudice in allowing
her to answer.
Q6) 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,
no error.
QO The defendant claims that the
evidence is not sufficient to sustain
the verdict, but is is held for rea.
sons stated in the opinion, that there
is enough evidence Of an implied prom.
Use to marry to sustain the Judgment,
mo particular form of words is Is,
sential to show the offer and accept.
ance of marriage and the question
whether or not there was such prom.
Use is a question of fact for the jury
(Syllabus by the COURT.
Appealed from the District Court
OF Towner County.
Gown, J.
Affirmed.
p. j. CcClory of Devils Lake. and
Bangs, Cooley & Hamilton of Grand
Forks, Attorneys for Appellant.
F. T. Cuthbert of Devils Lake, and
l.. H. Sennett of Cando, N. D., Attor
neys for Respondent.
Opinion of the court by E'urke, J.
Spalding, c. j.. Dissenting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE
OF NORTH DAKOTA. Appu