102 A.2d 303 | D.C. | 1954
The trial court found for defendant in an action for breach of warranty in the sale of a rebuilt air conditioner. Plaintiff appeals, assigning twelve grounds of error.
One contention is that the trial judge demonstrated a prejudicial attitude toward the plaintiff. The claim of prejudice was based on two grounds: The first was
He was also correct in excluding hearsay evidence as to what plaintiff had learned concerning the condition of the machine in telephone conversations with other repairmen. Neither error nor bias can be attributed to the judge because he made the rulings we have described without waiting for objection by the defendant. We are aware that in the trial court many parties appear without .coünsel, and we think it entirely proper in such situations for a judge to test the admissibility and propriety of evidence and rule thereon sua. sponte. So doing, he will be performing his proper function of assuring a fair and orderly trial, and a decision based on competent evidence.
Appellant says the trial court erred in continuing the case for further testimony. This action was in the field of discretion, and we think it gave not the slightest ground for complaint. On the contrary, by indicating the additional information he felt was necessary and by giving plaintiff a further opportunity to produce it, the judge was acting with fairness and propriety.
We have considered the other errors assigned and find that they are either without merit or totally unsupported by the record.
Affirmed.