*1 ,241 FOUNTAIN v. PETTEE. J. Mason, Opinion by
GIDEON FOUNTAIN v. L. PETTEE. DANIEL Objection
Evidence—Grounds Trial. —Error—New a party objecting reception It incumbent on of evidence, to com- opposite municate the nature and grounds of his to entitle trial an objection, himself to for error in overruling such , J. This is an action of assault and tried before battery, Mason, and the Plaintiff jury County Circuit, Judge Kings recovered a verdict of which was affirmed $750, General by taken and the Defendant Term, Defendant, has appeal by to this Court from the appealed judgment. of the is not contained in charge Judge case,
verdict is warranted evidence, that the jury assuming believed the Plaintiff and his which it was their wholly if were province do, with the they truthfulness impressed his testimony.
..The which can be reviewed in only questions this Court are of the rulings Judge upon questions was a of Pier No. wharfage and called on the Liver, an Defendant, iron-dealer, 228 "Water New office, street, to collect a York, bill for of a boiler wharfage belonging Defendant, spoke him about the boiler, the Defendant which, seems, knew nothing and some words ensued about; between the parties so much at boiler; issue over that that the Plaintiff did not the bill present the Defend- ant before he was ordered to leave.
It therefore became for the Plaintiff to very proper explain he did not make known why Defendant that he came to collect the bill for on the and with that view he asked did not tell question Why you —“ more ealled thepurgóse ? To this question, v. [March, Masoh,
Opinion *2 “ which counsel objected;” objec- the the case says, Defendant's and the Defendant’s counsel the Court, was overruled by tion excepted. In the first this place, to
There are two answers exception. Plaintiff went that the to show was tending evidence complete, in the Defendant’s office, and was lawfully there business, his busi- to Defendant that his to communicate and omission all that the Defendant denied the reason ness was to owing fully that. at issue over to of stated The answer there no second is, objection ground to the evi- The rule party objecting evidence. requires in to communicate opposite party, dence and if he his the evidence, of form, objection some grounds will avail him on motion for fails to do not so, objection trial. It is is a rule. due offer- This reasonable just that 'he be informed of the this should ground evidence ing The to it. choose correct- party may acquiesce objection and withhold the if the ness of the evidence, same, ground is stated. objection
It is sufficient to rule itself is too well settled to say as will be seen reference to the cases discussion, admit 6 Seaman, v. Barb. R. 5 J. 8 1 R. id. 330; 467; 387; (Merritt Hill’s R. 6 R. 17 24 R. 622; Cow. W. R. W. 25 407; 277; 257; 1 Den. R. 3 Den. 2 2 id. R. Hill’s R. Seld. 437; 281; 114; 603; 1 R. 18 R. Comst. N. R. 440 345; 83; 448; Y. 32 N. Y. R. ; 20 N. Y. R. 32).
There is still a third this The answer Defendant objection. afterwards went into covered himself, any objection Abbotts’ Reid, be v. R. might (Morgan 215). The Plaintiff’s counsel asked the the following ques “ time the tion : Were of Pier ” No. And to River? this the counsel for the that he objected, simply objected stating
This for the reasons objection overruled, already properly v.
Opinion by llASOif, as to tbe stated former it was objection; com- besides, entirely for the Plaintiff to state his or petent business. pursuit This furnishes an answer to the taken in objection folio 25. “ What was question was, business? And the your Defend- ant simply without objected any reason stating or grounds
The other are all objections and the equally frivolous, objections are all taken in the same -and none of form, them are well taken. should be affirmed. judgment
Affirmed.
JOEL TIFFANY, State Beporter.