Case Name: Emanuel M. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1960-02-02
Citations: 157 A.2d 626
Docket Number: Nos. 2466 and 2467
Parties: Emanuel M. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
Judges: Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 157
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
Emanuel M. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
Nos. 2466 and 2467.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 9, 1959.
Decided Feb. 2, 1960.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1960.
Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mark P. Friedlander and Blaine P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Ted D. Kuemmerling, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of "colliding" and of "leaving after colliding" in violation of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Regulations. '
His contention on this appeal is that the court improperly limited his counsel in his cross-examination of the government's witnesses.
We have carefully examined the record and cannot say there was any abuse of discretion in this connection.
Affirmed.