Green v. Brooks

Citations

• 215 Pa. 492
• 64 A. 672
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 830

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Failure to call witness — Presumption—Inferences—Charge of court.</p> <p>Where evidence which would properly be part of the case, is within the control of the party whose interest would naturally be to produce it, and, without satisfactory explanation he fails to do so, the jury may draw an inference that it would be unfavorable to him. It is an inference of fact, not a presumption of law.</p> <p>, On a feigned issue to determine the title to property seized in execution it appeared that a son of the plaintiff who was one of the defendants in the execution would have been a material and important witness for his father, if he could have corroborated him. The son was not called. The father when on the witness stand stated that the son was then in court. The court charged the jury that if it was a fact that the son was in court and had not testified or was not called upon to testify, that fact might be taken into consideration by them along with the other facts'in the case, but not as a conclusive one. Held, that the instruction was not erroneous.</p>