Court Opinion

ID: 3237590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 16:11:43.718648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:26.801568
License: Public Domain

Upon further consideration we are of the opinion that in denying the sufficiency of appellant's objections and exceptions during the examination of the plaintiff as to the agency of Walker, we indulged in a too technical treatment of the record. Instead of dealing with each objection and exception as a separate proposition, unrelated to the others, we now think the fairer and juster method is to take the entire series of questions and answers and objections, intimately related as they are, both in sense and in sequence, as an entirety; and, thus viewed, we think that defendant's counsel made the court fully and clearly acquainted with the ground of his objection to the witness' testimony as to what took place between him and Walker, and, the purpose of the rule being satisfied, it was not necessary for counsel to repeat his objection and the ground for it, every time an additional question to elicit the same illegal testimony was propounded to the witness.
The bill of exceptions shows a running colloquy which, as above stated, was logically and actually a single proposition — to elicit hearsay testimony of agency on the one side, and to exclude it, because it was not made admissible by proof of agency, on the other.
For these reasons we now grant the application for rehearing, set aside the judgment of affirmance, and, sustaining the assignments of error as to this testimony, reverse the judgment, and remand the cause for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. *Page 486