Hall v. The Bark \Emily Banning\

Citations

• 33 Cal. 522

Syllabus

<p>Conflict of Evidence.—Where on a trial the plaintiff, in her own behalf, testified to the enumeration and value of property sued for, and witnesses for defendant testified to previous statements made by plaintiff, wherein she gave a different enumeration of the same property, and stated its value to be much less than as testified to by her, this testimony of plaintiff, and evidence of her statements, considered as admissions of a party against interest, constitute a conflict of evidence as to the enumeration and value of said property.</p> <p>Idem.—In such ease, the evidence given against plaintiff has a double aspect; first, as evidence to impeach the credibility of plaintiff as 'a witness, and when offered for that purpose, the proper foundation must be laid for its introduction, as in other cases ; second, as evidence of admissions against interest made by a party to the action.</p> <p>Parties as Witnesses.—The result of the permission given by statute to parties to actions to testify in their own behalf, has not been to blend in one the different characters of parties and witnesses, nor to obliterate the distinction between admissions of parties against interest and statements of witnesses out of Court contradictory of their testimony at the trial.</p> <p>Few Trial where Evidence is Conflicting.—A motion for new trial is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the Court,-and this Court will not interfere except in case of a plain abuse of such discretion. The party alleging error in the granting or refusing a new trial, must affirmatively show such abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Idem.—As a general rule, the order granting or denying a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed whei!e the evidence was conflicting.</p>