208 Mich. 147 | Mich. | 1919
Lead Opinion
a judgment for $2,000 for plaintiff was reversed and a new trial ordered. Gagush v. Hoeft, 198 Mich. 263. The testimony, which it was held required the giving of a certain refused instruction, does not appear at all in the record now before us, about which appellant does not complain, did not seek to develop on cross-examination or otherwise, and about which counsel for appellee says in the brief:
“While the general facts and theories as reported and developed in the former trial of the circuit court were again reiterated, certain material evidence which was introduced at the trial of the cause the first time were entirely omitted, changed, amended on this last trial.”
The case for the plaintiff is, however, so developed in the statement of facts in the 198th Michigan that it is not necessary to repeat that statement here.
Upon the second trial, plaintiff had judgment for
A witness was giving testimony, an interpreter being employed. Difficulty appears to have been experienced in eliciting whatever the woman knew. It is not apparent that this difficulty arose from the fault of any one. A question was propounded. The court said:
“Now, interpreter, have her understand that, what Mr. McHugh (counsel for defendant) wants is to have her tell what Mrs. Gagush said as to what took place in the cemetery, see if you can have her understand that.
“A. First, she did not tell until afterwards.
“Q. Then what did she tell you afterwards?
"Mr. McIntyre (attorney for plaintiff) : I will stipulate, your honor, on this record that this witness will say what he wants her to say.”
Counsel for defendant objected to this as a grossly prejudicial remark and recorded an exception, and the court said:
“The exception may be noted. The jury should not pay any attention to that. We are all having trouble getting these questions and answers, and it is not the fault of anybody.”
We are not at all certain that the counsel who made the. remark complained about intended the meaning to be given to it which counsel for appellant gives it, which is a meaning that the words, standing alone, import. Our uncertainty as to the intended and ac
In his argument to the jury, addressed to the question of damages, the attorney for appellee said, “She is entitled to the same share in his property — ,” when he was interrupted by the objection that the measure of damages is not determined “by any share in his property.” The court said, “I will attempt to define the measure of damages to the jury when I get to it.” The attorney for appellee at once disclaimed the right or desire to usurp the functions of the court, but continued, by saying:
“I am simply telling you, if I be wrong in my statement of what the measure of damages in this case is, then I will stand corrected, but my understanding is, gentlemen, if this woman promised to marry a man that was worth $5,000, and as his wife she would become entitled to an interest in that $5,000, if he were to die the next day after the marriage ceremony were performed, she would be entitled to dower rights in his property.”
No complaint is made of the charge of the court thereafter given. A party is more often harmed than
Continuing his argument, counsel for appellee became eloquent and was several times interrupted and exceptions were taken to his remarks. Without setting out the argument, we express the opinion that the limits of proper argument were not exceeded. Counsel did express the opinion that his client was a virtuous woman. Her reputation for chastity was involved by the testimony. His expressed opinion seems to have been based upon the testimony. Summed up, his expressions in his argument amounted to no more than this: “I am impressed, and I think the jury ought to be, that upon this record she is shown to be a virtuous woman.”
It was error for the court to refuse to counsel for the appellant the right to comment in his argument upon certain alleged contradictions in the testimony given upon the former and upon this trial. Using the testimony given on the former trial, counsel had properly interrogated the witnesses for appellee upon cross-examination, and had secured certain admissions with respect thereto. In argument, he sought to return to the matter and to call the attention of the jury to the alleged discrepancies and contradictions of testimony. For this purpose he used, as he had used in interrogating the witness, the record of the testimony given on the first trial. This he was refused permission to do. No one claimed, or now claims, that he made improper use of the testimony or sought to call attention to matter not used in cross-examining the witnesses. What he sought to do was, in substance and effect, this: To say to the jury that the witness admitted having testified on the former trial as follows — reading from the minutes of the testimony given on the former trial matter to which the attention of the witness had been directed — and upon this trial she testi
We do not find reversible error, and therefore affirm the judgment, with costs to appellee. ,
Rehearing
On Rehearing.
1. In considering appellant’s claim that the jury were prejudiced by the remarks of plaintiff’s counsel as to the damages to which she would be entitled, Mr. Justice Ostrander, who wrote the opinion. said:
*154 “No complaint is made of the charge of the court thereafter given. A party is more often harmed than aided when his counsel asserts a legal proposition which the court denies.”
.It is claimed that' he overlooked the fact that error was alleged on the charge as given relative to the measure of damages. While it is true that error was so alleged, counsel then failed, and now fail, to point out any specific erronéous statement therein. As we read it, we think it fairly stated the matters which the jury should consider in assessing plaintiff’s damages. Bennett v. Beam, 42 Mich. 346.
2. In the opinion filed it was said:
“It was error for the court to refuse to counsel for the appellant the right to comment in his argument upon certain alleged contradictions in the testimony given upon the former and upon this trial.”
The conclusion was reached after examining the testimony, and especially the alleged contradictory statements of witnesses, that—
“It is wholly improbable that the limitation of the argument affected in any way the result.”
The argument to the jury should be based on the testimony submitted at the trial. Counsel had the right during such trial to interrogate witnesses as to the testimony given by them on the former trial, either from a transcript of such testimony, or from notes taken by him, or from his personal recollection of what they then testified to. If the witnesses admitted the giving of such testimony and it is contradictory, counsel may comment on it in his argument to the jury. He need not produce a transcript of the testimony taken while the trial is in progress to entitle him to do so. He may submit to the jury his recollection of the questions asked and answers given, and he should not be prevented from doing so, unless, on
The alleged erroneous ruling occurred during the argument of defendant’s counsel to the jury. We quote from the record:
“Mr. McHugh: Now in the first trial the same witness was questioned upon that subject and this is what she said: ‘Q. I went there’ — that is on direct examination now by her own counsel, she was not being cross-examined, she was not annoyed or heckled by opposing counsel, but was being questioned in a nice, kind way by her own mother’s attorney and this is what she says, page 85:
“The Court: Is that in the record in this case?
“Mr. McHugh: Yes, your honor, it was called to the witness’ attention and read to her.”
On objection, and after some discussion, counsel assured the court that “these identical questions were asked of the witness when she was on the witness stand.” Whereupon the court ruled that he might proceed.
We have examined the printed record with care and cannot find that any such question as counsel was seeking to read to the jury appears therein.
Later in counsel’s argument, the record shows:
“Mr. McHugh: First we find that Mrs. Gagush testified that she put the children to bed on the 13th of July; you will remember she claimed that Mr. Hoeft came to her home and that she left him and went in and put the children to bed, and upon that subject she was questioned along these lines: ‘Q. When did they go to bed? A. Half-past nine.’”
Upon objection being made, defendant’s counsel said: “I submit, your honor, it was called to the witness’s attention.” The court expressed a clear recollection that no such question was put to the witness on the trial and ruled that counsel could not read from the transcript of the former trial.
In defendant’s brief now filed, several pages consist, of parallel columns claimed to be statements made by plaintiff and several other witnesses on the present trial contradictory to those given on the former trial. For the purpose of the comparison, the record of the former trial and in one case the stenographer’s minutes are quoted from. We can only consider the errors which appear on the printed record before us. From, it we reach the conclusion that no prejudicial error was committed by the trial court in the rulings complained of.
8. Defendant’s counsel insist that this court overlooked his claim of error in the trial judge using the word “rebuke” when commenting on the contradictory nature of the testimony and that the jury were influenced thereby in their allowance of damages to plaintiff. It is, perhaps, sufficient to say that this alleged error was not in any way alluded to in the brief filed by defendant, but, in view of the fact that the verdict at the last trial was less than that rendered at the former trial, it seems apparent that no prejudice was created thereby.
The judgment must stand affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.
