Court Opinion

ID: 8508561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 08:34:14.156354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:51:00.469771
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON REHEARING.
After our former decision in this case counsel asked the privilege of presenting to us another reason why the evidence held by us to be irrelevant, was relevant on the examination before the notary.
It is contended that had Cora Dow Goode been compelled to answer the question propounded her answer might have disclosed that she was procuring Peruna from the very parties who she charges were in conspiracy to prevent her from buying Peruna.
We adhere to our former opinion for the following reasons:
The way has not been paved for this question. The said Cora Dow Goode had not been interrogated as to whether she had obtained all the Peruna she needed in her business and whether or not she had applied to any of the persons named in her petition and been denied; the fact that persons had bought Peruna under the prohibitive contract, and in violation thereof had sold to Cora Dow Goode would have been matter of defense and tended to weaken her ease but not conclusively.
We think the scope of the inquiry is too broad and subject to the objection first found by us, and if it was anticipated that she had bought Peruna from persons charged in the petition, the inquiry should have been limited and made more specific.
We think the inquiry as to the identity of persons on this point seeks a disclosure of her witnesses.
Swing and Giffen, JJ., concur.