Opinion ID: 1388158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Exclusion of testimony of subsequent operator of store in same building.

Text: Defendant assigns as error the exclusion of testimony by an operator of a store in the same building after it was vacated by plaintiffs. Defendant offered to prove by that witness that the store operated at a loss during the period from November 1969 to June 1970. It appears, however, that during that period the store did not have a beer license and did not stock either meat, fresh produce or clothing, among other differences in operation. It also appeared that the driveway was still difficult in the winter months to get into. The testimony of the operation of a store in the same building at a loss by that witness may have had some probative value, but any such probative value was slight and various collateral issues would have been raised by such testimony. Under such circumstances it was not error to exclude such testimony. See McCormick on Evidence 437-39, § 185 (2d ed. 1972). [6]