Case Name: REDSECKER v. WADE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-07-22
Citations: 69 Or. 153
Docket Number: 
Parties: REDSECKER v. WADE.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Burnett concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 153–165

Head Matter:
On motion to strike bill of exceptions, submitted on briefs June 18,
decided July 22, 1913.
On the merits, argued January 27,
decided February 3, 1914.
REDSECKER v. WADE.
(134 Pac. 5; 138 Pac. 485.)
Appeal and. Error — Objections—Presentation to Trial Judge.
1. Under Section 172, L. O. L., providing that the statement of an exception, when settled and allowed, shall be signed by the judge and filed with the clerk, and thereafter it shall be deemed and taken, to be a part of the record in the case, objections to the form and structure of the bill of exceptions should be addressed to the trial judge, whose duty it is to settle the terms of the bill.
Exceptions, Bill of — Form and Contents.
2. Section 171, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1913, page 650, provides that no particular form of exceptions shall be required; that the objections shall be stated with as much evidence or other matter as is necessary to explain it, but no more; that the bill shall consist of testimony and proceedings including the exhibits, instructions, and any other matter necessary to the decision of the appeal. Held, that, where a bill of exceptions contained a statement of the evidence sufficient to explain various objections urged, together with the rulings of the court, and at the end it was certified by the judge that the foregoing, with the transcript of the testimony attached and the exhibits filed herewith, constituted all the testimony offered and received in the ease, and that the same was settled and made a part of the record, etc., there was sufficient compliance with Section 171, as amended; the proviso being permissive, and not requiring that the bill in every case shall contain all the testimony, proceedings, exhibits, etc.
Appeal and Error — Object and Purpose — Scope—Requisites.
3. The purpose of a bill of exceptions being to provide the Supreme Court with a succinct and intelligible statement of the errors concerning which complaint is made on the appeal, it is not necessary in all cases to send up a transcript of the whole testimony and proceedings at the trial but only sufficient to present the errors complained of.
[As to the scope and effect of writs of error, see note in 91 Am. Dee. 193.]
Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — Definiteness.
4. Under Supreme Court Rule 11 (56 Or. 621, 117 Pac. xi), requiring assignments of error to set out briefly and concisely the errors relied on, and Rule 12, providing that no question will be examined or considered by the Supreme Court excepting those arising on the assignments of error and points as to the jurisdiction of the court and the sufficiency of a pleading to state a cause of action or defense, each assignment should be sufficiently certain to give notice to the respondent and to the court of the particular error relied on, or it will not raise any question for decision.
Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — Definiteness.
5. An assignment that the court erred in admitting evidence offered by plaintiff over the objections of defendant, without stating what evidence, raises no question for decision.
Witnesses — Impeachment—Cross-examination.
6. The trial court could, in the exercise of sound discretion, permit ■ cross-examination of defendant as to what names she had borne, what she had done, and whether she had ever been convicted of crime, for the purpose of discrediting her.
Evidence — Relevancy—Name of Party.
7. In an action on notes and accounts, testimony of plaintiff that when he first knew defendant her name was Jones, and that she also went by another name, was irrelevant and immaterial.
Evidence — Relevancy—Meeting With Defendant.
8. In an action on notes and accounts, testimony of plaintiff that he first met defendant, whom he afterward married, at the corner of certain streets in Portland, upstairs, was irrelevant.
Witnesses — Impeachment—Evidence of Immorality.
9. While a witness can be impeached for immorality, this can only be done by showing a bad reputation for morality, not by proving specific acts.
[As to impeaching of witness by proving want of chastity, see note in 53 Am. St. Rep. 479.]
Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — Definiteness.
10. Assignments that the court erred in admitting in evidence each and every record of divorce proceedings with which defendant had been connected and in admitting any and all evidence, touching on divorce proceedings between plaintiff and defendant are too indefinite to raise any question for decision.
Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — Definiteness.
11. An assignment that the court erred in permitting “so many questions imputing immorality to defendant” is too indefinite to raise any question for determination.
Witnesses — Impeachment—Conviction of “Crime.”
12. To constitute a 'crime within Section 863, L. O. L., providing that, for the purpose of impeachment, it may be shown that a witness has been convicted off crime, the act must be a violation of state law and be punishable capitally, by imprisonment, or by fine, in a criminal action in which the state is plaintiff; and the section does not authorize evidence of conviction of violation of a city ordinance.
From Multnomah.: George N. Davis, Judge.
This is an action by F. H. Redsecker against N. J. Wade, in which plaintiff recovered judgment and defendant appeals. Respondent now moves to strike from the files appellant’s bill of exceptions.
Motion Overruled.
Mr. M. O. Wilkins submitted a brief in support of tbe motion.
Mr. H. C. King and Mr. William A. Williams filed a brief contra.
Department 1.

Opinion:
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff respondent here moves the court to strike from the files.the defendant's bill of exceptions filed June 16, 1913, and sundry exhibits filed on the following day. He states as grounds for his motion:
_ " (1) The alleged bill of exceptions does not, in relation to any exception therein noted or mentioned, contain any evidence or other matter necessary to explain such exception or any exception therein.
"(2) Prom the transcript of testimony attached to the said alleged bill it affirmatively appears that there was introduced at the trial documentary evidence, consisting of some 50 exhibits, none of which exhibits are either attached to or for identification referred to by mark or data (sic).
"(3) The said bill of exceptions does not conform to the requirements of Section 171 of Lord's Code, nor the amendment thereof on page 650, Session Laws of 1913.
" (4) The alleged exhibits are not identified, marked, or filed by the clerk of the Circuit Court or the trial court.
"(5) The alleged exceptions of appellant are, each and every thereof, to the admissibility of certain exhibits and documentary evidence, and the same are not stated in the bill nor any statement made to show in what error, if any, was made."
Section 172, L. O. L., provides that "the statement of the exception, when settled and allowed, shall be signed by the judge and filed with the clerk, and thereafter it shall be deemed and taken to be a part of the record of the cause."
The objections noted go to the form and structure of the bill of exceptions and should have been addressed to the trial judge, whose function it is to settle the terms of such a document.
Section 171, L. O. L., as amended hy Chapter 332, Laws of 1913, provides that "no particular form of exceptions shall be required. The objection shall be stated, with as much evidence, or other matter, as is necessary to explain it, but no more: Provided, however, that the bill of exceptions may consist of a transcript of the whole testimony and all of the proceedings had at the trial, including the exhibits offered and received or rejected, the instructions of the court to the jury, and any other matter material to the decision of the appeal." The proviso in this section constitutes the amendment enacted.
The bill of exceptions on file contains a statement of the evidence sufficient to explain various objections urged, together with the rulings of the court thereon. At the end of 15 pages of such matter appears the following statement, signed by the trial judge:£ ' The foregoing, with the transcript of the testimony attached hereto, and the exhibits filed herewith, constitutes all the testimony offered and received in this case. And now, in order that the foregoing and the matters and things therein referred to may be made a part of the record, on due notice, this bill of exceptions is hereby settled and allowed this 6th day of June, A. D. 1913." There is enough in this bill of exceptions to satisfy the mandatory part of Section 171, L. O. L. The language of the proviso is permissive in its signification. It is not to be construed to require that in every case the bill of exceptions must contain the whole testimony and all the proceedings had at the trial, together with the exhibits offered and received or rejected, etc.
The object of the law and the purpose of the bill of exceptions is to provide for this court a succinct and intelligible statement of the errors about which complaint is made on the appeal. In some cases this can be accomplished by a very brief statement. In others it may be necessary to send to this court everything mentioned in the proviso. We cannot settle a bill of exceptions nor decide objections to the one filed here, for that is the peculiar function of the trial judge. We do not decide that all the evidence is annexed, or that all or any of the exhibits are attached to or accompany the bill of exceptions. We only decide that there is a bill of exceptions here conforming to the mandatory requirements of the section defining such a paper. It is not amenable to the objections urged.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. II. G. King and Mr. William A. Williams, with an oral argument by Mr. King.
For respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. M. O. Wilkins.
Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Ramsey.
This is an action to recover money alleged to be due upon a promissory note and upon certain accounts. The defendant set up several counterclaims. There was a verdict and a judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,825. The defendant appeals. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
Reversed.
The motion is overruled. Motion Overruled.