Glenn v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co.

Citations

• 206 Pa. 135
• 55 A. 860
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 662

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Witness—Cross-examination.</p> <p>The cross-examination of a witness should be confined to matters in regard to which he has been interrogated in chief, or to such questions as may tend to show his bias, interest or relation to the party calling him, or test his knowledge, integrity and accuracy of statement. A party should not be permitted to establish his claim or to prove his defense by a cross-examination of the witnesses of his opponent. Such is not the purpose for which a witness is cross-examined. While this is the rule, yet the range of a cross-examination, to a very great extent, must be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless that discretion has been plainly abused, to the injury of the party complaining, it is not ground for reversal.</p> <p>If part of a conversation be given in chief the rest of it may be elicited on cross-examination.</p> <p>Where a witness has stated a fact he may be asked by the other party to detail all the circumstances within his knowledge which qualify it even though they may constitute new matter and form a part of his own case.</p> <p>In an action by a woman against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, a physician called by the defendant testified that he had concealed from the plaintiff while he was treating her professionally, and, as she thought, as her own physician, the fact that he was surgeon of the company, in order that he might secure information which would place him in a position “to be ready for anything that might come in the future.” Subsequently plaintiff came to the physician at his request, and he testified that he told her that he thought he could get some compensation for her from the company. He was then asked on cross-examination if in that conversation he did not deny to plaintiff that he was the surgeon of the company. Held, that the cross-examination was proper, as it elicited the balance of the conversation, part of which the witness had gi