Harris v. Brown

Citations

• 187 F. 6
• 109 C.C.A. 60
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4477

Syllabus

<p>1. Tkial (§ 46*) — Exclusion of Evidence — Necessity of Offeb.</p> <p>If a question asked of a witness testifying on a trial is in proper form, and clearly admits of an answer relevant to the issues and favorable to the party on whose side the witness is called, its exclusion is error, although no statement is made of what is purposed to be proved ; such a statement not having been required by the court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 115-117; Dec. Dig. § 46.*]</p> <p>2. Witnesses (§ 58*) — Competency—Husband and Wife — Kansas Statute.</p> <p>Gen. SI. Kan. 1909, § 5915 (Code Civ. Proa § 321). which provides that husband and wife “shall be incompetent to testify for or against cads other concerning any communication made by one to the other during the marriage, whether called while that relation subsisted or after-wards,” construed liberally, as required by statute and in harmony with cognate provisions and the settled legislative policy of the state toward married women, makes husband and wife competent witnesses for or against each other in civil cases, except as to the communications specified; and under Rev. St. § 858, as amended by Act June 29, 1906. o. titiOS, 34 Stat. 618 (U. S. Comp. St Supp. 1909, p. 212), which provides that the competency of witnesses in civil actions in the federal courts “shall be determined by the laws of the state or territory in which the court is held,” a wife is a competent witness for her husband in ail action by him for alienation of her affections, brought in a federal court in Kansas.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.- — For other eases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 164; Dec. Dig. § 58.*</p> <p>Competency in federal courts, following state practice, see notes to O'Connell v. Reed, 5 C. C. A. 602; Hinchman v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 21 C. C. A. 278.]</p>