Case Name: Dante DINO d/b/a Dino Construction Company, Appellant, v. Nicholas P. O'DAWE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1963-12-13
Citations: 158 So. 2d 562
Docket Number: No. 63-141
Parties: Dante DINO d/b/a Dino Construction Company, Appellant, v. Nicholas P. O’DAWE, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 158
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.