Court Opinion

ID: 9531926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:16:01.182406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:37.482179
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Chief Justice
(concurring).
*389As the last paragraph of the opinion states and the record shows, the two questions called for evidence given by the witness .in his prior testimony; consequently, they were repetitious and cumulative, and the court did not err in sustaining the objection to them.*

 Some of the evidence of the haste and unorthodox method by which Mrs. Zick lost her “E” bonds shows that she did not sign the “E” bonds in the presence of the Assistant Vice President of the bank or state to him that she did sign them, yet he certified that she “signed the above request in [his] presence.” The check in payment of these bonds was made payable to Mrs. Jeanette Zick. The undisputed evidence also shows it was credited to the account of Morris Myers; however, the endorsement states that it was credited to the account of the “payee,” Mrs. Zick. The banker did this because he “trusted” defendant, and his representations and urgings of haste were evidence of defendant’s intent to obtain the proceeds of the bonds for his own use.