Court Opinion

ID: 9537735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:22:09.578357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:56.344653
License: Public Domain

Thiele, J.
(dissenting in part): I agree with the rule stated *35in the opinion as to the latitude to be extended on cross-examination but am of the opinion the cross-examination was not unduly restricted as to the witnesses Maness and Embree nor as to a considerable part of the testimony of witness Wilson. The questions asked Maness and Embree concerned matters too remote to have any value. The objection to a question as to what price Wilson would sell his 40-acre tract, located about a mile from the involved real estate, was properly sustained. It was proper to inquire of him what consideration he gave to the improvements on the condemned property.
Price, J., concurs in the foregoing partial dissent.