Cockrill v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.

Citations

• 90 Kan. 650
• 136 P. 322
• 1913 Kan. LEXIS 282

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Witnesses — Cross-examination — Discrediting Questions■ — ■ Judicial Discretion. When a party takes the stand as a witness his adversary h&s a right, on cross-examination, for the purpose of affecting his credibility, to inquire touching his past life and conduct, the limits of such inquiry being ordinarily within the discretion of the trial court. When such limits are unnecessarily restricted, but the party has testified concerning only matters on which there was other evidence, such restriction may not be and in this case was not materially prejudicial.</p> <p>2. - Refreshing Recollection■ — ■Competent Memorandum. The report of a commission company used by a shipper of cattle to refresh his recollection 'of the sums received for the animals composing the shipment, stated by him to ’ be substantially correct as he remembered, is competent as a memorandum touching such sums, its weight and probative force being for the jury.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Reports, Telegrams, etc., Made by Trainmen— Competent. Reports, telegrams and memoranda relating to a shipment of cattle, made by the trainmen at the time, in the line of their duty, were competent evidence under section 384 of the civil code and should have been admitted, but such trainmen having testified substantially to all that such papers would have shown their exclusion under the circumstances of this case worked no substantial prejudice.</p> <p>4. Shipping Contract — Written Notice of Damage — Obviated. When it is shown that some of the cattle were dead and others crippled when set at the chute and that a representative of the railway company was present at the unloading, the necessity for the written notice usually provided for in contracts of shipments is obviated, as such notice could not afford the carrier any knowledge which it did not already possess.</p>