Court Opinion

ID: 9549575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:21:28.087803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:32.683769
License: Public Domain

Grady, J.
(dissenting)—I would be able to agree with much that has been said in the majority opinion if the situation of which complaint is made occurred while appellant was being cross-examined as a witness in his own behalf. However, we must not get such a situation confused with the use of a party to an action as an adverse witness for the purpose of securing admissions or proving facts peculiarly within his own knowledge.
Counsel for respondent departed from the purpose for which appellant was called as an adverse witness.. The complaint alleged that appellant had promised respondent he would cure her cancer ailment. This allegation was denied in the answer. Counsel had no reason to believe that he would get an affirmative answer when he asked appel*919lant if he told respondent he would cure her carcinoma. He got a negative answer, but it was not direct as called for by the question. He should have requested the court to strike the answer and instruct the jury to disregard it and the witness to give a direct answer. Respondent took advantage of the situation thus created and injected into the case collateral matters of a prejudicial nature under the guise of contradiction and impeachment.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.
Finley, J., did not participate. ■
October 1, 1952. Petition for rehearing denied.