Case Name: KOLLER BROS. v. JOLLS
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1925-11-16
Citations: 4 Ohio Law Abs. 250
Docket Number: No. 5907
Parties: KOLLER BROS. v. JOLLS
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 4
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
KOLLER BROS. v. JOLLS
Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
No. 5907.
Decided Nov. 16, 1925

Opinion:
VICKERY, J.
This cause arose in the Municipal Court of Cleveland. Said court permitted Ernest Jol les when on the stand, to refresh his memory from a copy of the statement of defense used-in' the trial.
Attorneys — Sanders, Monahan & Sanders for Koller Bros.; Hedrick & Hedrick for Jolls; all of Cleveland.
Counsel for Koller Bros, objected to this copy being shown to witness. The Court overruled this objection, and counsel saved the exception.
The Court of Appeals held:
' It is prejudicial error to permit a witness to refresh his memory from copies of the pleadings.
Judgment reversed.