56 So. 162 | Miss. | 1911
The testimony delivered by Mr. Joy as to the discharge of the defendant we do not think competent- on the testimony in this record. It was very easy to have proved that discharge by the records of the company, or by Mr. Smith or Mr. Van Hook, or any proper agent of the company, who had personal knowledge of the fact of such discharge. It is obvious that Mr. Joy’s testimony on that subject was wholly hearsay. Whether or not the appellant had been discharged at the time he had his dealings with Mr. Briscoe was the vital point in the case. The fourth instruction, asked by the defendant and refused, should therefore have been given.
We notice no other assignments of error than those specified. Reversed and remanded.
The above opinion is adopted as the opinion of the court; .and, for the-reasons therein set out, the case is reversed and remanded.