Court Opinion

ID: 9831209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:55:12.412239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:32.570186
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[9] Appellee insists that we rule upon his three cross-assignments. The first cross-assignment is:
“The court erred in excluding the following testimony from the jury: Frank Newnam testified that ‘Mr. Jones was chairman of the Citizens’ League, and called an indignation meeting in his name at the Bethoven Hall and was chairman of the meeting; that witness was there and heard the speaking. Jones called the meeting and was chairman of the meeting and on the platform. The speaker, Mr. Webb, said my name was a stench in the nostrils of the people; that I had these policemen appointed and did it to intimidate voters. I had not appointed any policemen in my life.’ ”
Viewed in the light of the record before us, the trial court correctly excluded this testimony, for .the object of the meeting does not appear. The statement itself was made by Mr. Webb, not by Mr. Jones. The evidence does not show that Mr. .Jones authorized, ratified, or even approved the statement. We overrule the first cross-assignment.
[10] The second cross-assignment is:
“The court erred in sustaining the objections of the defendant to the' following testimony: Plaintiff offered to prove by Louis Dennet, a reporter of the San Antonio Light, that he had a conversation with A. H. Jones on August 9, 1912, in which said Jones said the platform and issue on which he was elected demands that Frank Newnam and Fritz Russi be discharged from the city’s employ. ‘Just how we are going about this 1 can’t say at present, but it shall be done.’ ”
This testimony could prove nothing more than that Mr. Jones intended to discharge Mr. Newnam, and that Mr. Jones’ political platform made the promise to discharge him. This testimony does not tend to show whether or not Mr. Jones deemed Mr. Newnam competent and fit for the position, which was the only issue to- which it could be relevant. The ruling of the court presents no reversible error. The second cross-assignment is overruled.
The third cross-assignment presents a question similar to the second cross-assignment, and for the reasons last discussed is overruled.