Case Name: ROURKE v. MEIER
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1925-02-03
Citations: 106 Okla. 109
Docket Number: No. 12632
Parties: ROURKE v. MEIER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
ROURKE v. MEIER.
No. 12632
Opinion Filed Feb. 3, 1925.
Evidence — Parol Evidence of Writing — Documentary Evidence — Predicate.
It is proper to refuse to permit proof by parol of the contents oí a bill of lading when the necessary showing has not beejn made. It is also proper to refuse to admit evidence showing a change in a so-called list papejr when no proper preliminary show ing as to the character or the evidentiary value of the] list paper has been made.
(Syllabus by Lyons, 0.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.
Error from County Court, Oklahoma County; W. R. Taylor, Judge.
Action between S. A. Rourke and Ernest Meier, a minor, by Ada Cole, his nest friend. Erom the judgment the former appeals.
Affirmed.
Gasper Edwards, for plaintiff in ejrror.
Wilkinson & Bell, J. E. Cody, and T. E. Donnell, for defendant in error.
Note. — See undcfr (1) 22 (’. J. p. 1045; 38 Cyc. p. 1350.

Opinion:
Opinion by
LYONS, C.
Parties will be referred to as in the court below. Plaintiff sued defendant to recover the sum of $50. Defendant counterclaimed and alleged that $53.50 was due for conversion of ten cases of pork and beans. Plaintiff ¡recovered in the justice court, and upon a trial de novo in the county court plaintiff again recovered, and defendant's counterclaim was again deified.
The plaintiff in error relies upon two errors :
Eirst. Offer to prove by parol evidence the contents of a bill of lading. This offer was properly denied, and the objection to evidence sustained for the reason that no proper foundation or preliminary showing' was made.
Second. The other error alleged relates to the sustaining by the trial court of an objection to evidence tending to show a change on a list paper. There is no showing of the character of the paper changed, by whom it was kept, how it was kept, or that the change therein was in any way material to thej issues in this case. The trial court properly sustained the objection to this evidence for the reason that no proper foundation was laid, and no propér preliminary showing made as required by the rules of evidence.
The appeal is without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.