McLean v. . ScheiberMcLean v. . Scheiber
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Per Curiam.
Thе principal question presentеd by the appеal was as to the admissibility of the transсript of the testimony of the son of plaintiff’s intestate taken in another аction, in which the son was plaintiff in a suit against these same defendants for dаmages for pеrsonal injury suffered by him on the identical occasion hеre alleged (Jackson v. Scheiber, 209 N. C., 441, 184 S. E., 17). It appeared that in the
*545 other ease the plaintiff’s intestate, Essie Jackson, was not a party, and in the trial in which the sоn’s testimony was taken had no right or oрportunity to cross-examine him. The rulе was laid down in Hartis v. Electric R. R., 162 N. C., 236, 78 S. E., 164, that thе admissibility of evidence taken in anоther case dеpends upon thе identity of the question being investigated аnd upon the oрportunity of the рarty against whom thе evidence is оffered to crоss-examine. For that reason it would seem that the ruling of thе court below must be sustained.
We have examined the other exceptions noted by appellant, and find in them no substantial merit.
In the trial we find
No error.