Pittsburg v. Newell

Citations

• 223 Pa. 420
• 72 A. 793

Syllabus

<p>Road law — Assessment of benefits — Evidence—Cross-examination.</p> <p>1. In a proceeding to assess benefits for the widening of a street, counsel for a property owner attempted on cross-examination of two witnesses offered by the city, to develop the fact that the property in question, so far as benefits might accrue to the owner of the fee, was burdened with an outstanding lease for a term of years. This was objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and not cross-examination. As to the one witness, the offer was withdrawn, and the question not pressed. As to the second witness objection was made that the proposed question was hypothetical, not based on facts and evidence, and the trial judge ruled it out. Held, that the matters complained of did not, under the circumstances, constitute reversible error.</p> <p>Trial — Offer of evidence — Pressing offer — Good faith.</p> <p>2. Where counsel on one side in making an offer called upon counsel of the other side to try the case according to the facts, the judgment will not be reversed on the ground that the remarks tended to prejudice the minds of the jury, where the court below in its opinion refusing a new trial, stated that the contention was pressed in good faith by counsel, and finally ruled out.</p>