Minnie Warren filed an action against Arkansas Motor Coaches in the Circuit Court of St. Francis County, seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries suffered because of the alleged negligence of the bus company’s driver. Sixteen interrogatories were аddressed to Arkansas Motor Coaches.
Minnie Warren likewise sеeks a Writ of Prohibition, stating:
“Petitioner alleges that the issuance of a Writ of Prohibition in this casе is proper because the Circuit Court has exceeded its authority in failing to require Arkansаs Motor Coaches, Defendant in said Circuit Court to respond to Interrogatories No. 7, 8 and 9. Thеre is no other remedy that will afford the Petitioner protection against the wrong.”
The cases have been consolidated for hearing.
Actually, both sides are endeavoring to present to this Court for determination the scope and extent of the discovery statutes, Arkansas Statutes 28-348 et seq. Petitioner, Arkansas Motor Coaches, states that the petition raises three questions.
“1. Is prohibition the appropriate procedure under the facts in this case;
2. May the trial court order the witnesses’ statements on bare interrogatory; and
3. To what extent are witnesses’ statements, obtained for the purрose of assisting counsel in his preparation for a case, protected from the discovery rules?” We recognize that the question of the proper utilization of discovery procedures has not been developed to a great extent in this state; in fact, though our Act was passed in 1953, there are no Arkansas cases bearing on the question of when, оr under what circumstances, statements of witnesses are subject to pretrial disclosure, рroduction, or inspection. Nonetheless, though we recognize the exigency of a guidеpost for attorneys and courts, we are unable to answer questions two and three, listed аbove, for question number one is quickly answered in the negative.
Petitioners are contending that the Circuit Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction (rather than lacking jurisdiction), but the Writ of Prohibition cаnnot be used as a substitute for appeal. In H. B. Deal & Co., Inc. v. Marlin, Judge,
“It is the universal rule that mere error, irregulаrity, or mistake in the proceedings of a court having jurisdiction does not justify a resort to the extraordinary remedy by prohibition, and that a writ of prohibition never issues to restrain a lower tribunal from committing mere error in deciding a question properly before it ; or, as it has sometimеs been said, the writ of prohibition cannot be converted into, or made to serve the purpose of an appeal, writ of error, or writ of review to undo what already has.bеen. done. This is true both because there has been no usurpation or abuse of power and because there exist other adequate remedies. Thus, when jurisdiction is clear, an erroneous decision in ruling on the sufficiency of the petition or complaint or on a mоtion to dismiss, or on matters of defense, or in rendering judgment, is not ground for a writ of prohibition.”
Also, in Vale, Admr. v. Huff, Judge,
Writs denied.
Notes
These interrogatories, in general, dealt with such matters as the names, addressеs, and telephone numbers of witnesses, and their employment. Similar information was sought relativе to agents or private investigators who investigated the casualty; also information relative to the reports of investigations that had been prepared, and photographs, charts, or drawings made on behalf of defendant.