Clay v. . ConnorClay v. . Connor
Tbe plaintiff introduced evidence to the effect that he purchased the house and lot for $1,800, “with all the appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining.” .That he purchasеd with the house and lot the fourteen shares of stock valued at $350, in the water company, and defеndants failed and refused to deliver same. The defendants denied that they sold the stock.
The defendаnt, E. E. Connor, testified as follows: “In June, 1922, I went out to Fairview and had a conversation with Mr. Olay, and offered to sell him my stock for one-half of what I originally offered. I had originally offered it for $350. He asked me to givе him ten days to consider. I told him I had not come out with such a proposition, but if he wanted ten days I would givе it to" him.” This evidence was objected to by plaintiff, and the court below sustained the'objection, and defendants excepted and assigned error. The court below should have admitted the testimony.
J. E. Shufоrd, a witness for defendants, testified: “I was present with Mr. Connor some time in 1922, when he had a conversation with Mr. Clаy at Fairview concerning the stock. Q. After that, after the conversation with Mr. Connor and Mr. Clay, when you wеre present, did you have another conversation with Mr. Clay in regard to this stock of the Fairview Gravity Cоmpany? A. I asked Mr. Clay after this conversation between him and Mr. Connor that I was witness to, I said “Why don’t you buy that stock ?’ He said he didn’t buy the stock; that his deed for the house and lot included all appurtenances thereto and that gave him the right to the water stock; that was all the statement I heard Mr. Clay make.” This evidеnce was objected to by plaintiff, and the court below sustained the objection and defendаnts excepted and assigned error. The court below should have admitted the testimony. The evidenсe was material as bearing on the contract alleged on one side and denied on the other: Was the stock sold with the house and lot? A deed carrying an easement as to water rights, see
Blankenship v. Dowtin,
Thе court below, recognizing the controversy waged over a contract, charged the jury cоrrectly as to what was a contract: “A contract, gentlemen of the jury, is said to be the meeting of two minds. The minds must come together and understand and agree upon each and every detail of the contract before it is considered a contract. If there is some detail or condition whiсh one party understands and the other does not, that is not a contract; both minds must meet and understand and agree upon each and every detail.” This definition does not mean immaterial details. This evidence was introduced by defendants for the purpose of impeaching plaintiff’s testimony, and we think thе exclusion prejudicial to the defendants.
*203
Speaking to tbe subject, we find in "Wigniore on Evidence, Vol. 2, 2d ed., part sec. 1040, p. 491-2, tbe following: “In tbe present mode of impeachment, there must be of cоurse a
reaH inconsistency
between tbe two assertions of tbe witness. Tbe purpose is to induce tbe tribunal to discard tbе one statement because tbe witness has also made another statement which cannot аt tbe same time be true. . . . Thus, it is not a mere difference of statement that suffices; nor yet is an absolutе oppo-siteness essential; it is an inconsistency that is required. Such is tbe possible variety of statement that it is often difficult to determine whether this inconsistency exists. But it must appear 'prima facie’ bеfore tbe impeaching declaration can be introduced. As a general principle, it is to be understood that this inconsistency is to be determined, not by individual words or phrases alone, but by tbe
whole impression or effect
of what has been said or done. On a comparison of tbe two utterances, are they in effect inсonsistent? Do tbe two expressions appear to have been produced by inconsistent bеliefs?
Clifford, J.,
in
U. S. v. Holmes,
“Therе are also three other modes of impeaching tbe credit of a witness: (1) By disproving bis statements, made in court, by tbe testimony of other witnesses; (2) By proving statements of tbe witness made out of court, incоnsistent with or contradicting those made by him on tbe witness-stand,” etc. Jones on Evidence, 2d ed., sec. 844, p. 1074.
It is well settled that it is competent to show previous inconsistent statements made by witnesses to weaken their credibility and consistent statements to strengthen their credibility. Ordinarily a party may not impeach bis own witness, but may show a different state of facts by another witness.
Tbe issues upon another trial should be reformed. Eor tbe reasons given, there must be a
New trial.