Benson v. Town of Hamilton

Citations

• 34 Wash. 201
• 75 P. 805
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 336

Syllabus

<p>Tbial — Continuance—-Discbetion-—Intoxication of Witness. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse a continuance on the ground of the intoxication of a witness, where other witnesses had testified to the same facts which he was expected to swear to, and the adverse party admitted that he would so testify if sober, and where a continuance of one day had already been taken on that account.</p> <p>New Tbial — Newly Discoveeed Evidence — Cumulative Testimony. It is not error to refuse a new trial on account of newly discovered evidence as to statements made by the plaintiff that she was not injured in the manner claimed, when it was only cumulative, other witnesses having testified to similar statements made to them, and this being one of the main points in the case.</p> <p>Municipal Corporations — Streets •— Negligence — Uncorroborated Evidence — Sufficiency. In an action for personal injuries sustained in a fall upon a defective walk, the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff as to the condition of the walk is sufficient to make a prima facie case for the jury, and the credibility thereof is exclusively for the jury.</p> <p>Same — Plaintiff’s Knowledge of Defect — Contributory Negligence — When for Jury. The statement of plaintiff, injured by a fall on a defective walk, that the walk was old, that she had been over it many times and had seen defects in it, is competent but not conclusive evidence of contributory negligence, making it a question for the jury.</p>