Quincy Horse Railway & Carrying Co. v. Gnuse

Citations

• 137 Ill. 264
• 27 N.E. 190
• 1891 Ill. LEXIS 1035

Syllabus

<p>1. Impeachment op witness—contradictory statements out of court— laying the proper foundation. The rule is inflexible that a witness cart not be impeached by proof of his having made contradictory statements. out of court, unless his attention has been directed, on his examination,. t0 those alleged contradictory statements, specifying particularly the time and place. It is not enough to ask the witness the general questions whether he has ever said so and so.</p> <p>2. In a suit against a street railway company, to recover damage» for alleged negligence in allowing a drunken driver to run a car drawn by mules, the evidence was conflicting as to whether such driver, at the time of the accident, was drunk, and he testified denying that he was intoxicated. On cross-examination he was asked if he did not,, after the first trial of the case, (there having been several trials,) at &. named place, tell D. and H., in a conversation about the accident, that he did not deny being drunk at the time of the accident, and.he, denied having said so, at that or any other place. The court allowed the plaintiff to prove, by D. and EL, that the driver, shortly before the first trial, did make such statements: Held, that the admission of such impeaching evidence was erroneous.</p> <p>3. Evidence—statements as of the res gestee. On the trial of a suit for damages against a street railway company, for alleged negligence in running a team and car over the plaintiff, a lad aged about seven years, the statements of the driver of the car just after the car was stopped, and while the plaintiff was under it, are proper to be shown in evidence, as part of the res geslce.</p>