Case Name: W. G. JONES, Respondent, v. J. C. DUCHOW, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1890-12-13
Citations: 87 Cal. 109
Docket Number: No. 13219
Parties: W. G. JONES, Respondent, v. J. C. DUCHOW, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 109–114

Head Matter:
[No. 13219.
In Bank.—
December 13, 1890.]
W. G. JONES, Respondent, v. J. C. DUCHOW, Appellant.
Libel — Evidence — Des Gestas — Certificate of Character — Contradiction of Witness. — Where a libel is justified on the ground o£ its truth, and a witness for the defendant has testified that the plaintiff was denounced by himself and all good citizens at the place of his residence, on a certain date, a certificate of recommendation of the plaintiff for good and correct habits in business and social relations, signed by several prominent citizens of that place, at a date four months earlier, is not admissible as part of the res gestee, to contradict the statement of the witness, nor to prove the good character of the plaintiff.
Id.—Impeachment of Witness — Specific Acts — Battery.—A witness cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts; nor is it proper to ask him, for the purpose of impeachment, whether he had been arrested, pleaded guilty, and paid a fine for heating, bruising, and battering a woman of the town.
Id. — Objection to Impeaching Evidence. — An objection to such question, on the ground that it did not tend to impeach the witness, and that the record was the best evidence, is specific enough to invoke the rule which does not permit a witness to he impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The facts are stated in the opinion rendered in Department Two.
F. D. & G. W. Nicol, F. W. Street, and E. A. Rodgers, for Appellant.
It was error to admit the certificate in evidence, none of the signers being produced as witnesses in court, and the certificate not being cotemporaneous with the acts alleged, nor part of .the res gestee. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1826, 2082; Wharton on Evidence, secs. 254-267; People v. Eckman, 72 Cal. 584; Aguirre v. Alexander, 58 Cal. 26; Bush v. Roberts, 111 N. Y. 478; Louisville R'y Co. v. Buck, 116 Ind. 566; 9 Am. St. Rep. 883.) The letter, in any view, was inadmissible to contradict Gift. (Spottiswood v. Weir, 66 Cal. 528; Jepsen v. Beck, 78 Cal. 540.) It was res inter alios acta, and could not be used for the purpose stated by the court. (King v. La Grange, 61 Cal. 232.) The witness having been examined by plaintiff on a matter collateral to the issue, plaintiff was bound by his answer thereto, and could not contradict him. (Pierce v. Schaden, 59 Cal. 540; Donelly v. Curran, 54 Cal. 282; People v. Mitchell, 62 Cal. 412; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 449.) The letter was incompetent to prove Jones’s reputation, which could only be proved by sworn testimony of his general reputation. (People v. Wheeler, 60 Cal. 581; 44 Am. Rep. 70; State v. Wellington, 43 Kan. 121.) The certificate was not admissible for any purpose. (Vicksburg v. Meridian R. R. Co., 119 U. S. 99.) It was error to allow the witness Bradford to be questioned as to particular wrongful acts, no conviction of a felony being shown. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2051; Hinkle v. San Francisco R. R. Co., 55 Cal. 627; People v. Hamblin, 68 Cal. 101; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633; People v. Elster, 3 West Coast Rep. 37, and cases there cited.)
James H. Budd, and I. M. Kalloch, for Respondents.
The principal fact here in question being the manner of plaintiff’s leaving Hollister, whether in secret Hight or open departure, and what people there said of. him, all such declarations as that in question, whether written or parol, are admissible. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 1850, 1870, subd. 15; Wharton on Evidence, secs. 258-260; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 108; People v. Vernon, 35 Cal. 51; 95 Am. Dec. 49.) The certificate was admissible, not to show character, but to contradict defendant’s testimony as to what was said of plaintiff by citizens of Hollister. (1 Wharton on Evidence, sec. 254; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 123.) The specific ground of objection now urged to the examination of Bradford was not urged in the court below, and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (Natoma Water & Min. Co. v. Clarkin, 14 Cal. 548; People v. Moan, 65 Cal. 536; Hicks v. Lovell, 64 Cal. 22; 49 Am. Rep. 679; People v. McCauley, 45 Cal. 148; Cutter v. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 184; Henry v. R. R. Co., 50 Cal. 176.)

Opinion:
The Court.
Upon rehearing and further consideration of this case, we are satisfied that the court below did err in the particulars pointed out in the opinion filed herein February 28, 1890, and the same will stand as the opinion and order of the court on this appeal.
Beatty, C. J., and Fox, J., dissented.