Bailey v. Seattle & Renton Railway Co.

Citations

• 32 Wash. 640
• 73 P. 679
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 468

Syllabus

<p>WITNESSES-RECALL FOR PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING TESTIMONY.</p> <p>Permitting the recall of plaintiff for the purpose of explaining' her testimony as given originally on the witness stand, and which had apparently been contradicted by the testimony of another witness, would not constitute prejudicial error, especially where the contradictory testimony had been elicited by means of improper cross-examination.</p> <p>SAME • — • IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION ■— IMPEACHMENT.</p> <p>Testimony improperly elicited on cross-examination cannot he contradicted by the introduction of impeaching testimony.</p> <p>SAME-DECLARATIONS NOT IN PRESENCE OF PARTY-REBUTTAL.</p> <p>Declarations prejudicial to plaintiff, made by one not in her presence, cannot he introduced for the purpose of rebuttal, or to impeach the testimony given by one of her witnesses.</p> <p>CARRIERS-DEFECTIVE PLATFORM-INJURIES TO PASSENGERS-EVIDENCE OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-ADMISSIBILITY.</p> <p>In an action for damages for injuries to plaintiff’s ankle, received from stepping into a rotten place in a railway platform, evidence on the part of defendant that plaintiff had a weak ankle was immaterial, in the absence of a plea of contributory negligence.</p>