King County v. Whittlesey

Citations

• 52 Wash. 206
• 100 P. 320
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1097

Syllabus

<p>Bonds — Official Bonds — Actions—Shortage During Subsequent Teem — Evidence—Relevancy—County Treasurers. In an action upon the official bond of a county treasurer covering his- first term of two years, to recover for a shortage during such term, books, records and accounts showing an entirely separate shortage during a second term following the first, are primarily irrelevant and inadmissible as proof of, .or in corroboration of, the first term shortage; but their Contents tending to explain certain items testified to on examination-in-chief are competent, if confined to throwing light on the first term.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Cross Examination of Expert. In an action upon an official bond, where the official’s shortage rests upon the evidence of an expert accountant, cross-examination to discredit the witness and show mistakes in his accounting is legitimate, although going into matters of defense at variance with the theory permitted the plaintiff.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Findings—Credibility of Witness. In an action at law tried before the court without a jury, a finding of the trial court as to the credibility of a witness, who was discredited' by cross-examination, will not be reversed on appeal, unless clearly against the evidence.</p> <p>Trial — Nonsuit—Credibility of Witness — Province of Court. Although the evidence of a witness for plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, the trial court sitting without a jury is not bound to believe the witness, and may grant a nonsuit where, on cross-examination,' the witness was shown to be unreliable.</p>