Case Name: Ordway v. Ordway
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1913-12-10
Citations: 180 Ind. 573
Docket Number: No. 22,532
Parties: Ordway v. Ordway.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Ordway v. Ordway.
[No. 22,532.
Filed December 10, 1913.]
1. Divorce. — 'Trial.—EwamAnation of Witnesses. — Conclusions.— Harmless Error. — The ruling of the trial court in permitting witnesses in a divorce proceeding to be asked if plaintiff was a bona fide resident of the county and State1, over defendant’s objection that the question called for a conclusion, although erroneous, was rendered harmless, where defendant’s attorney on cross-examination elicited competent evidence that fully disclosed that plaintiff was a bona fide resident of the county and State for more than two years before the filing of her complaint, p. 574.
Prom St. Joseph Circuit Court; Walter A. Funk, Judge.
Action by Anna Ordway against Eobert P. Ordway. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1405 Bums 1908, Acts 1901 p. 590.) .
Affirmed.
George D. Beroth and H. A. Sties, for appellant.
Slick & Stick, for appellee.

Opinion:
Erwin, J.
In the trial of this cause, a proceeding for divorce, the appellee's attorney propounded to the witness, Catherine A. Briggs the following question, "I will ask you to state whether or not Mrs. Ordway, was, two years prior to September 12, 1910, a tona fide resident of Indiana and St. Joseph County?" and asked substantially the same question of the witness, W. J. Martin. Over the objection of the appellant, that the questions asked for a conclusion and not a statement of facts, the court allowed the witnesses to answer the question. The appellant, duly excepted to the rulings, and assigned the same as causes for a new trial, notifying the court at that time that he intended to appeal to the Appellate Court, on a reserved question of law, as provided in §669 Burns 1908, §630 E. S. 1881.
The ruling of the court would have been reversible error if it were not for the fact, that on cross-examination of these witnesses the appellant's attorney put to said witnesses such questions as fully disclosed the fact that the appellee had been a tona fide resident of the county of St. Joseph, for more than two years before the filing of her complaint for divorce, introducing by cross-examination competent evidence as to residence, and effectually curing any error the court may have committed, in allowing the witnesses to answer tne questions to which appellant objected.
Note. — Reported in 103 N. E. 40G. See also 38 Oyc. 1432.
There being no error shown by the record, judgment is affirmed.