Opinion ID: 1666570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maps

Text: The state asserts that: Questions to be reviewed on appeal must first be presented to the trial court by motion for a new trial, and questions not so presented cannot be considered on appeal, Davis v. Smitherman, 209 Ala. 244, 96 So. 208. The state insists that the asserted rule prevents us from considering Assignments 5, 6, 7, and 8, which relate to admission of evidence, and which present for review rulings that were not presented by the motion for new trial. The state's assertion is not correct. Rulings of the trial court on the admission and rejection of evidence are reviewable on appeal without a motion for new trial. Travis v. Hubbard, 267 Ala. 670, 673, 104 So.2d 712; Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Proctor, 272 Ala. 217, 226, 130 So.2d 388; Popwell v. Shelby County, 272 Ala. 287, 292, 130 So.2d 170, 87 A.L.R.2d 1148. Landowners assign severally as error, the rulings admitting in evidence, over objection, state's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. Exhibit 1 purports to be a map of Andalusia. The grounds of objection stated to the court were, in substance, that the witness who identified the map and laid the predicate for its admission had nothing to do with its preparation, and that the map shows on its face that it was prepared by others named thereon. The identifying witness testified, without objection by landowners, that he considered Exhibit 1 an accurate map of the City of Andalusia. The map appears to have been used merely to illustrate to the jury the location of the proposed highway and landowners' property with relation to the city. The authenticating witness testified that he was familiar with the highway project, that as assistant division engineer he had worked on the project, that he had had prepared under his supervision and laid on the map the routes that the proposed bypass is to take through the City of Andalusia. Exhibit 1 was not used for a detailed representation of the property here involved. It was used rather to show in a general way the location of the road and the property. If it be conceded that the predicate for admission of the map was insufficient to show that it was accurate as to detail, we are nevertheless of opinion that appellants were not injured thereby because the map was not used to show details. Moreover, the jury went onto and viewed the land itself and must have noted its relative location. Overruling objection to Exhibit 1, if error, was without injury to appellants. Supreme Court Rule 45, Appendix, Title 7, Code 1940. Exhibit 2 is a detailed map showing appellants' land and the location of the proposed road across the land. The same authenticating witness testified, before Exhibit 2 was admitted in evidence, that this exhibit accurately depicted the appellants' property, that he did not personally survey the property and was not present when it was surveyed, and that he is not a registered land surveyor. Appellants objected to admission of Exhibit 2 on the ground that if the drawing is accurate, it is only hearsay as to this witness. He was not present when it was done nor was it made under his personal supervision. The predicate thus laid probably was insufficient for admission of the map, as a survey, in a proceeding where precision and strict accuracy are relevant to determination of the issue, as in a suit to establish a boundary. Golden v. Rollins, 266 Ala. 640, 98 So.2d 409. The annotator in 9 A.L.R.2d 1046, points out in § 2, When a witness testifies to physical conditions or happenings, he may do so diagrammatically as well as verbally. He may represent points and objects by marks or shapes in a drawing, and distances, directions, and movements by lines therein. He may do so while testifying, either by his own hand or by directions to counsel, or he may do so through a map, plat, or other drawing made by himself prior to trial. It is not even necessary that it be made by him. He may communicate his knowledge by simply testifying to the correctness of a drawing made by someone else and presented to him while on the stand. In such a case it is not essential that its author be in court or even known, if the witness has personal knowledge of the subject matter of it, and testifies to its correctness in the respect for which he uses it.   . In an action to recover damages for trespass to land, a surveyor, while testifying, was shown a diagram, purporting to be descriptive of the lands in controversy, and was asked to show the jury on the diagram where the witness ran the line between plaintiffs and defendants. On appeal, this court said:    This diagram was used to enable the witness to make his testimony intelligible to the jury. The use of the diagram was objected to by the plaintiffs, `because said diagram had not been made by the witness himself, nor was it shown or proven to be a correct survey and diagram of the premises described in the plaintiffs' complaint.' The court below overruled this objection, and the plaintiffs excepted; and this exception is one of the errors assigned here. 1. This assignment cannot be sustained. There was no error in the ruling of the court below on this point. A diagram is simply an illustrative outline of a tract of land, or something else capable of linear projection, which is not necessarily intended to be perfectly correct and accurate. In many instances this cannot be made to appear. At best, it is but an approximation; and in this sense, it is indifferent by whom it is made. In this case, it was not offered as a plat of the survey of the lands in question, but only as a means of explanation of the witness' description of the lands. This was competent and relevant. A witness may as well speak by a diagram, or linear description, when the thing may be so described, as by words. It is a common and usual method of pointing out localities and lines. Even savages resort to it, in lieu of words, in describing the course of rivers, and the lines of the sea shores. It is enough if it serves the purpose of the witness in the explanation of the lines and localities he is seeking to exhibit. It was so used in this case. Shook v. Pate, 50 Ala. 91, 92. The witness authenticating Exhibit 2, when asked And does it accurately depict this property? answered, It does. On cross-examination, this witness testified: Q Well, after this map right here, the one we are talking about, I believe it is Exhibit 2, after that drawing was prepared that you have been testifying about, you say you went out on the land and you checked it to see if it was accurate, is that right? A Yes, sir. Exhibit 2 is a drawing of that character which is used to illustrate the testimony of witnesses and to give to the jury a better understanding of that testimony. We hold there was no error in admitting in evidence Exhibit 2. Its correctness, vel non, was for the jury. Exhibit 3 is a strip of paper representing the right of way condemned in this proceeding. It purports to be drawn to the same scale as Exhibit 2 and is designed to be, and was, used as an overlay placed on top of Exhibit 2 to illustrate the location of the finished road on appellants' land. What we have said as to Exhibit 2 applies to Exhibit 3. We hold that Exhibit 3 was admitted without error.