Kinnane v. Conroy

Citations

• 52 Wash. 651
• 101 P. 223
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1171

Syllabus

<p>Witnesses — Cross-Examination—Scope—Relation to Matters in Chief and to Defense — Brokers—Evidence. In an action to recover a broker’s commission, defended on the ground that it was subject to the approval of the vendor’s wife, wbo refused to sign, error cannot be predicated upon permitting the defendant to ask on cross-examination whether plaintiff did not ask the wife to come in and sign the contract; it being within the trial court’s discretion and sufficiently connected with the matter in chief relating to the securing of the contract, although it may also have tended to support the defense.</p> <p>Trial — Reception of Evidence — Specific Objections. Where the question asked simply required the witness to state what he would do if he should be advised by his counsel in a certain way, an objection that it was “predicated upon facts not in the case,” is valueless and insufficient to raise the point that the advice of counsel, or the action of the witness thereon, were irrelevant or inadmissible.</p> <p>Evidence — Admission—Declarations Against Interest — Brokers —Contracts. In an action to recover a broker’s commission, defended on the ground of fraud by falsely reading to defendant a contract prepared for bis signature by tbe plaintiff, cross-examination of a third party, who was interested in the commissions, as to a conversation between witness and the defendant fixing the terms of the proposed sale, is admissible as a declaration against interest upon the issue of fraud in the terms of the contract as read over to the defendant.</p> <p>Trial — Instructions. It is not error to refuse requested instructions covered in the general charge.</p> <p>Trial — Comments oe Counsel — Evidence—Purposes eor Which Oeeered. Where appellant offered in evidence an exhibit for a specified purpose without expressly limiting its effect it becomes evidence upon any point in issue to which it is material and relevant; and it is proper to refuse to restrict the argument of opposit