Scott v. American Express Co.

Citations

• 257 Pa. 25
• 101 A. 96
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 678

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Witnesses—Testing credibility — Scope of cross-examination — Former testimony of witness — Objection—Reasons— Rights on appeal — Practice, Supreme Court.</p> <p>1. The credibility of a witness may be impeached if he previously made statements inconsistent with or contradictory to his present testimony, and this includes inconsistent statements made in pleadings in the causes; but to constitute ground for discrediting a witness the omission must he made at a time when the occasion was such that he was called upon to make the disclosure.</p> <p>2. Where in an action against an express company to recover for injuries sustained by an employee in consequence of the defective condition of the brakes and steering apparatus of one of defendant’s motor trucks on which plaintiff was riding as a helper, the defense was that the accident was caused by the intoxication of the driver, a fellow servant, and defendant’s superintendent testified that he visited the driver two hours after .the accident and that he then showed signs of having been drinking, it was reversible error to permit the witness to he cross-examined as to whether he had not sworn to answers in an action brought by the driver in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County arising out of the same accident and that such answers had said nothing about the driver’s having been intoxicated, where it appeared that under the rules of that court the facts constituting the defense in such case were not required to be stated in the answer.</p> <p>3. Where the objection to such cross-examination was. first made merely on the ground that such evidence was not introduced in plaintiff’s case, but where subsequent comment bf the trial judge and counsel for the plaintiff clearly indicated that the cross-examination was for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness and, a general objection to the question followed such comment, the record is not clear as to the ground upon which the objection was based,