Court Opinion

ID: 9829654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:30:28.687787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.913113
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee calls our attention to two statements in- our opinion which. he thinks are contradictory. In the last paragraph of the opinion we said:
“For the reasons given, and, further, because of the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that circumstances and conditions existed at the time of the utterance of the statements made by plaintiff below and testified to by by the witnesses, and hereinabove shown, showing such statements to be admissible as res gestas, we conclude that the judgment below should be reversed, and the cause remanded,” etc.
We believe the rule to be, as stated in the other statement:
“That when, in an appellate court, error is assigned to the admission of testimony, the burden is on the one objecting to the admission to show that the testimony was inadmissible; but, when an assignment is urged to the exclusion of certain testimony, the burden is on the one seeking to introduce the testimony to show that it was admissible.” Missouri, K. & T. v. Washburn (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 582; Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Cowan (Tex. Civ, App.) 243 S. W. 912; P. W. & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Ryan, 271 S. W. 397, 400; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Sherwood, Thompson & Co., 84 Tex. 125, 136, 19 S. W. 455, 17 L. R. A. 643.
If any statement in the concluding paragraph of the original opinion can properly be construed as announcing a different rule than the one just stated, the writer wishes to withdraw such «portion of our opinion.
But we are of the opinion that at least some of the statements alleged to have been made by plaintiff below 'and testified to by the witnesses were not res gestee, either of the transaction out of which the injury is claimed to have been received, or of any subsequent act of the plaintiff, in which he, by involuntary expressions of pain or suffering, indicated present pain or suffering. For instance, W. A. Beck testified:
“I run a barber shop and rooming house combined. He has been in my barber shop since that day. I have shaved him. He has complained of pain, bodily pain, since April 13, 1924. When I would go to lay the chair back, he would often tell me to be careful or it would hurt his side, or something like that.”
At least, the majority are of the opinion that the last statement of the witness is not an involuntary expression of. pain on thft *476part of plaintiff below, but is a statement by the plaintiff cautioning the witness to be careful, or his action in laying the chair back might or would hurt him. If such construction of the testimony is proper, and the majority believes it is, we do not think that the testimony of the witness is admissible as res gestee, and that, if not, it would be hearsay.
Mr. Oreenleaf says that hearsay is that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely, from the credibility to be given to the witness himself,\ but rests, also, in part upon the veracity and competency of some other person. Greenleaf on Evidence (13th Ed.) § 99. The following cases are cited by appellee in his motion: Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Eastman, 95 Tex. 34, 64 S. W. 863; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Pox et al., 106 Tex. 317, 166 S. W. 693; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Garren, 96 Tex. 605, 74 S. W. 897, 97 Am. St. Re£. 939; Bailey v. Look (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W. 1010; Richard Cooke & Co. v. New Era Gravel & Development Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 168 S. W. 988. In Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Eastman, supra, in an opinion by Chief Justice Gaines, the court said:
“But two rules are reasonably well established: (1) That, in the absence of evidence impeaching the credibility of a witness, such testimony is never admissible. Moody v. Gardner, 42 Tex. 414. (2) That whenever a witness is sought to be impeached by showing that he has made declarations inconsistent with the testimony given by him upon the trial, and the tendency of such impeaching evidence is to show that the testimony of the witness is, by reason of some motive existing at the time of the trial, or of some influence then operating upon him, fabricated, it is proper to admit evidence of his former declarations which corroborate his testimony, provided such declarations were made at a time when no such motive or influence existed.”
In the cited case, the Supreme Court ' held that the evidence of former statements alleged to have been made by plaintiff were not admissible, and that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in so holding. In the instant case there was no effort made to show that plaintiff below had made any statements prior to the trial and subsequent to his alleged injury inconsistent with his testimony offered on the trial. It is true that the defendant offered the testimony of certain physicians to the effect that they were not able to find any evidence of injury. But this evidence was merely contradictory to the testimony offered by plaintiff and his witnesses, and by its introduction the defendant did not seek to impeach the plaintiff. In Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Fox, siipra, in an opinion by Chief Justice Brown, there was involved testimony offered by witnesses as to what the husband of the injured person had told the witnesses as to his wife’s being hurt.. The Supreme Court held that in this case the evidence offered: was improperly admitted. In the course of the trial, the defendant offered testimony which, if believed, would reasonably lead to the conclusion that Mrs. Eox had recently fabricated the testimony offered as to her injuries and the manner of receiving them. The court properly held that under such circumstances it would be proper to admit her statements made at a time near to the accident, and that she did speak of such accident, giving the time and place. We see nothing in this case that bears on the question here presented. In Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Garren, supra, the same questions were involved as in the last-mentioned case, and consequently the decision has no bearing on the questions herein involved. The other cases cited are not pertinent to the issues herein involved.
.Motion for rehearing is overruled.