Crawford v. Harris

Citations

• 5 Cal. Unrep. 403
• 45 P. 819
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 1102

Syllabus

<p>Building Contract.—In an Action for Services for Construction of a building, defendant, after testifying that plaintiff left the job uncompleted, and that he (defendant) thereafter superintended the work himself, and that it took up his time so that he could not attend to his business (which, it appears, was that of a merchant) for two months, was asked “the value of the time he lost” while personally superintending the work. Held, that the question was objectionable, as calling, not for the reasonable compensation of a superintendent, but for the value of his time.</p> <p>Building Contract.—Allowing Defendant, on Cross-examination, in an action for construction of a building which he claimed he had to complete himself, to be asked if he had not told the brickman that he would not pay him, but that if he got anything he would have to get it out of plaintiff, even if error, is harmless, defendant’s answer being “No.”</p> <p>Jury—Misconduct.—The Presumption Being That Jurors have ■ faithfully performed their duty, a new trial is properly denied where the affidavits charging misconduct of jurors are fully met by counter-affidavits of the jurors.</p>