Court Opinion

ID: 7812902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:14:52.021564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:31.206489
License: Public Domain

Hart, J., (after stating the facts). It is insisted that the court erred in excluding from the jury the testimony of Ed Joiner to the effect that he had purchased certain merchandise on the 5th of May,’ 1922, from the Hayes Stores Company on an order sent by the Colonial Investment Company. The court excluded the testimony on the ground that the defendant could not identify the goods purchased1 as part of the account, sued on. This did not make any difference. It is true, as contended by counsel for appellee, that testimony collateral to the main issue in a case cannot be introduced; but we do not think that that rule has any application here. According to the testimony of T. J. Hart, who was the manager of the Hayes Stores Company, he did not know anything about the Colonial Investment Company having purchased the business of C. L. Beauchamp until the 24th day of June, 1922. The goods sold before that date were sold on the credit of C. L. Beauchamp, and were charged to him. The testimony of Joiner to the effect that he bought goods from Hart on the 5th of May, 1922, on an order from the Colonial Investment Company,' tended to contradict the testimony of Hart which we have just referred to above. The jury might have found from the testimony of Joiner, which was excluded from it, that Hart was mistaken when he said that he did not know anything about the Colonial Investment Company having purchased the business of Beauchamp and commencing to trade with the Hayes Stores Company, until the 24th day of June, 1922. ’ It will be noted that Joiner testified that he got the goods from Mr. Hart himself on an order of the Colonial Investment Company on the 5th of May, 1922. If he did this, Hart would know from the transaction, at least, that the Colonial Investment Company was trading with him, and the testimony would tend to contradict that given by Mr. Hart. We cannot know what credence the jury would have given to the testimony, and, as the jury is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses, it was necessarily prejudicial to the rights of the defendant to exclude testimony which was competent and tended to establish the defense of the defendant. Therefore the judgment' will be reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial.