Court Opinion

ID: 9847595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:02:46.32514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:22.223943
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Chief'Justice
(dissenting).
, There is no question but that plaintiff’s exhibits 10 to 15 were not admissible in evidence under sections 486 and 502 of Title 12 O.S.1951. We have heretofore condemned the admission of two of the same exhibits in Noble v. City of Bethany, 206 Okl. 122, 241 P.2d 401. The exhibits offered in this case were letters from third parties or inter-office communications. The defendant at no time had an opportunity to cross-examine the authors of those instruments. Highly prejudicial statements were contained in some of .the exhibits. It is urged that they were admissible to show notice on the p-art of the defendant but the trial court made no attempt in his- instructions to limit their efficacy to notice only.
To say that the admission of these exhibits is harmless is pure conjecture. Here *369an over-sized farm pond was polluted for two years and the jury allowed damages to the extent of $30,650. Such an amount is so flagrantly excessive that undoubtedly passion and prejudice moved the jury and who are we to say that these documents, erroneously admitted, were not responsible for the size of the verdict.
I dissent.