Metropolitan Railroad v. Loud

Citations

• 20 App. D.C. 330
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5454

Syllabus

<p>Evidence; Trial; Answers Responsive to Questions; Reading Declaration to Jury;</p> <p>1. Where a witness’s answer to a question propounded on cross-examination is not entirely irresponsive and does not attempt to inject anything into the ease not the subject of inquiry, and, at all events, contains nothing that can materially affect the issue, the overruling of a motion to strike out the answer, especially when made after the close of the cross-examination and during the redirect-examination, is not reversible error.</p> <p>2. Where, in an action against a street railway company, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff’s testimony is to the effect that her injury was caused by the carelessness of the conductor, while the circumstances in evidence tend to show that if any negligence of the defendant’s employees produced the injury it was that of the motorman in starting the car, and defendant’s counsel in addressing the jury states that while the plaintiff testified that the injury was caused by the conductor’s negligence, there was no evidence to show that he gave any bells for the ear to start, it is not error for the trial court to permit the plaintiffs counsel in his closing address to the jury to reply to such statements by reading the declaration for the purpose of showing that the action covered the negligent starting of the car by the defendant’s agents and employees, where the jury is told that the purpose of reading the declaration is to show the extent of plaintiffs claim, but that its statements are not in evidence.</p>