Johnson v. Northport Smelting & Refining Co.

Citations

• 50 Wash. 567
• 97 P. 746
• 1908 Wash. LEXIS 786

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Responsiveness. Where plaintiff was asked to state what was the fact as to there being timber on land, claimed to have been damaged by fumes from a smelter, an answer that “it is all timber” need not be struck out as not responsive to the question, especially where the court directed further answer to the question.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error — Pacts Otherwise Established. Where, in an answer to the question as to the kind of timber on plaintiff’s land, he made a statement of the kinds, “and quite a bit of cedar too,” it is not error to refuse to strike out the answer, the amount of cedar being subsequently shown.</p> <p>Trial — Misconduct of Judge — Comment on Evidence. An instruction to the jury based upon the contingency that they find damages to timber “by the noxious vapors arising from its smelter” is not unlawful comment on the evidence, it having been shown that the vapors or gases were destructive, since they were therefore noxious, and it is immaterial that they were so termed.</p>