Evansich v. G., C. & Santa Fe R. R. Co.

Citations

• 61 Tex. 24
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 38

Syllabus

<p>1. Depositions — Examination of witness.— It is proper to ask a witness on a cross-examination any question that may be pertinent to the matter to be decided by the jury; and any fact to show a bias in the evidence of the opposite party is admissible whether the same be offered by the examination in chief or on cross-examination.</p> <p>2. Same.— This rule is not confined to such questions as will show bias of the witness; for the purpose of showing this, or falsity in his main statement, a witness may be examined upon collateral matters; but it extends to an examination into all matters connected with the res gestee.</p> <p>3. Cross-examination of witness.— On a cross-examination inquiry may be made into the situation of the witness in respect to the parties and to the subject of litigation,— his interest, his inclinations and prejudices, his means of obtaining a certain and correct knowledge of the facts about which he testifies, the manner in which he uses those means, his power of discernment, memory and description, may be fully investigated and ascertained.</p> <p>4. Cross-examination. — • While the rule that only such evidence as is relevant to the matter in issue is admissible applies to the cross-examination as well as the examination in chief of a witness, it is not applied with the same strictness to a cross-examination.</p> <p>5. Witness.— Any fact which bears on the credit of a witness is a relevant fact; and this whether it goes to his indisposition to tell the truth, his want of opportunity to know the truth, his bias, interest, want of memory, or other like fact.</p> <p>6. Practice — Deposition.— That cross-interrogatories to a witness sought information regarding matters to which the witness testified in a former deposition affords no reason for striking them out.</p> <p>7. Deposition. — See opinion for facts under which it was held that the taking of the deposition of a witness by the same party a second time in the same suit was an irregularity