Court Opinion

ID: 9832400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:52:57.881967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.407427
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants, Fort Worth Hotel Company and C. Leahy, have filed their respective motions for rehearing, in which they insist that we should set aside our order remanding this cause, and render judgment in their favor. This we are not inclined to do. But our attention has been called to matters involved in the appeal which we believe should be clarified, in view of another trial.
In discussing appellants’ second proposition, in which it was complained that the trial court permitted, over objections of appellants, several citizens to testify as to appellee’s good reputation for honesty and fair dealings, as well also for truthfulness, we treated the two lines of testimony together, as did the cases cited by us. We still think it was entirely proper in a case of this character to admit testimony as to appellee’s good character. The pleadings, the nature of the wrongs complained of and the amount of damages sustained, made this an issue. If the pleadings upon another trial should be the same, and if the issue of his general reputation as to being a law-abiding citizen and one of good character for honesty and fair dealing is not confessed by defendants below, the court should hear evidence, if tendered in support of it. ;
We do not believe the same rule should be applied concerning evidence for appellee’s truthfulness. Insofar as applicable to this phase of the testimony, what we have said in the original opinion is withdrawn. The nature of the case, as made, did not involve appellee’s general reputation for truth and veracity to any greater extent than in any other law súit, *588where a party testifies in his own behalf. In such circumstances we can see no reason, under our procedure, to permit a party-witness to bolster his own testimony by proving that his reputation in the community for truthfulness is good. We think a correct rule, in this respect, was announced in Jenkins et al. v. Pure Oil Company, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 497, where, at page 500, it is said:' “Testimony offered to sustain the good character of a witness for truth and veracity is not admissible unless an attempt has been made by the opposite side to impeach such character. Every witness is presumed to be truthful until the contrary is shown, and the contradiction of a witness by other witnesses testifying differently is not such an attack upon the character for truth and veracity as authorizes the introduction of testimony sustaining the general character for truth and veracity.”
' We also think, as was expressed in another part of the opinion from which we have last quoted, that the bolstering of appellee’s general reputation for truthfulness gave him an undue advantage over appellants and was calculated to confuse the jury and cause them to pass upon a collateral issue, rather than the one properly before the court. In Grant v. Pendley, Tex.Com.App., 39 S.W.2d 596, 78 A.L.R. 638, discussing the effect of injecting collateral issues into a trial, the court said, at page 599: “With both sides using character witnesses, often the real merits of the controversy would be obscured or entirely lost sight of, and he who could best develop this phase of his testimony would stand the better chance to obtain a verdict. As has often been declared, it is a far safer rule that controversies between citizens should be decided upon facts having a direct bearing upon the issues between them rather than upon mere opinions of partisan friends as to the relative standing of the parties to the litigation.” See also 45 Tex.Jur., p. 140, sects. 268 and 269; Ibid. p. 271, sect. 339. Under the same conditions existing upon the former trial, we think the class of testimony discussed should not be admitted.
Appellants’ motions challenge our expression used in the former opinion, where we stated that “the assistant manager (of the Hotel Company) knew Lentz was going to take Garrett out of the hotel and deliver him to the police, to be ‘put up.’ ” They say they do not think such an inference can be drawn from' the record, and quote at length from the testimony, in support of their contention. Our statement was based upon a summary of testimony, some of which is quoted by counsel, to the effect that the assistant manager knew Lentz and Leahy were going to take Garrett out of the hotel, and Lentz, in that connection, further testified: Question: “You took him over there for the purpose of- — -under the advice of the assistant manager, to turn him over to Mr. Lea-hy to go and put him up, did you not?” Answer: “Yes.” We do not think our expression could even be classed as an inference, nor do we think ,we did any violence to the evidence by the manner in which we referred to it.
Complaint is also made in these motions of our holding in connection with the introduction in evidence, over their objections, of the police “blotter” and what was said at Police Headquarters. We held that the procedure at Headquarters was admissible against Leahy, and because of the lack of proper objections upon the part of the Hotel Company, no error was shown to the consideration of that evidence as against it. They say in their motions that, “Leahy did not tell any one that the charges were made at the instance of Lentz or the Hotel.” We think the record supports the construction given by us. Leahy tes•tified: Question: “Didn’t you notify those officers there to put this charge (the one appearing on the Blotter) against Ben Waggoman, at the instance of Lentz of the Texas Hotel?” Answer: “Yes.” Question: “You told them that, didn’t you?” Answer: “I told them right there when I brought him in.” In such circumstances we think, as stated in the original opinion, that Leahy could and did anticipate that the entries would be made at Headquarters in line with his instructions to the driver of the Squad car which was called to take Garrett and Waggoman to the Police Station, and that he is chargeable with notice of the procedure that would be followed when his instructions were carried out.
From the way we view the whole case, we believe we have properly disposed of this appeal, and with the correction herein made, as to the introduction of evidence supporting appellee’s reputation foi truthfulness, under the conditions existing at the time of the other trial, the motions for rehearing are overruled.