Caffery v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.

Citations

• 261 Pa. 251
• 104 A. 569
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 724

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Booh entries — Verification—Records hept by third persons — Discretion of court — Inadmissibility — Trials - — ■ Examination — Evidence tending to discredit witness — Admissibility.</p> <p>1. What is sufficient verification of hook entries to warrant their admission is largely a question for the discretion of the trial judge.</p> <p>2. Where in an action to recover damages from a railroad company for personal injuries sustained in a collision, it appeared that plaintiff was on her way to Atlantic City; and that, after the accident, she completed her journey and remained there three days, and her condition while there was a controverted question at the trial, and a photograph was offered in evidence showing the plaintiff in a bathing suit, it was not error to refuse to permit the introduction in evidence of records of the establishment where the photograph was made, tending to show that it was taken two days after the accident, where the person who took the photograph was not called as a witness, and where there was nothing to show that the records relating to the photographs were in his .handwriting; and where further there was nothing to show that any effort had been made to locate him and bring him to the trial.</p> <p>8. Evidence of a threat to give false testimony made to one party by a witness of the other is relevant as affecting the truthfulness of such witness, and will not be excluded because expressly made to induce settlement of the case.</p> <p>4. Where in such case, it appeared that plaintiff had had some discussion with an uncle who was in the employ o£ defendant relative to the settlement of the ease, and the uncle appeared as witness for the defendant and testified that plaintiff was not injured, it was not error to admit in rebuttal evidence to show that the' witness had threatened to “lie the plaintiffs out of c<?urt” if they did not settle the case.</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of error.</p> <p>5. Error can be assigne