Court Opinion

ID: 9812640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:43:48.184427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:40.585937
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting. I can not concur in the judgment or opinion of the Court. The only ground for granting a new trial appears to be the admission of testimony as to the condition of other engines. Under the circumstances of this case T am inclined to think that the admission of such testimony was competent in any view, but whether this is so or not, *802it is clearly admissible in rebuttal of tire defendant’s evidence. Tire defendant had previously introduced Parish, foreman of its round-house, who testified on direct’ examination, that he did not remember anything about the particular time of the fire or the particular* engine, but that he did not permit any engine to go out of the round-house without being in thorough repair. The object of his testimony clearly was to prove that this particular engine, of which he had no recollection, must have been in good repair at that time because all the engines were constantly kept in repair. The plaintiff simply answered this by showing that the other engines were not always kept in perfect repair, because they had set fire to property in such, a way as could not have happened if they had been equipped with spark arresters such as described by the defendant’s witnesses. Such evidence was strictly in rebuttal. .
Put it may be said that the plaintiff’s counsel on the cross-examination of Nowell, a witness for the defendant, asked him about some engines that had been burned, and thus opened the door to the defendant. It seems a very little crack to open so wide a door. But admitting it to be so, the defendant did not shut the door, but opened it still wider. If it was left'wide open by the defendant, why could not the plaintiff enter?
But another view suggests itself. In Neal v. Railroad, at tills term, this Court has held in effect that all the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, whether given on direct or cross-examination, is the plaintiff’s testimony. Why is it not so as to the defendant ?