25 Neb. 53 | Neb. | 1888
The questions involved in this case are to a great extent the same as in Northeastern Nebraska Railroad Company v. William Frazier and James A. Frazier, just decided. The first point decided in that case does not arise in this, but the decision of the other questions in that case will be adhered to in this.
The new points raised in this case are :
1st. The incompetency of a certain witness to testify to the value of the lands injured. The testimony of one Steele is referred to, to show his incompetency. In regard to his qualifications, he testifies as follows:
Q,. Where do you reside?
A. Wayne, Nebraska.
Q. Are you acquainted with Randall Frazier, the plaintiff in this case ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q,. Are you acquainted with the location of the northwest quarter of section 13, Tp. '26, R. 3 E.?
*55 A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you acquainted with the S.E. quarter of Sec. 23, Tp. 26, R. 3 E., and the location thereof?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the S. | S.E. Sec. 14, T. 26, R. 3 E.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q,. Are you acquainted with the location of the S.W. -J Sec. 13, Tp. 26, R. 3 E.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q,. State if you know where these lands are located— relative to this town.
A. They join the town site.
Q. On which side?
A. South-west side.
Q,. State if you know who is in the occupancy of these lands, and who has been for the last four or five years?
Objected to by the defendant as immaterial. Overruled by the court, to which the defendant excepts.
A. Randall Frazier.
Q. Were you, in the year and in the summer of 1886, acquainted with the market value of these lands, and also the lands in their immediate vicinity?
A. I was.
He was then permitted to testify as to the value of the land before the location of the road, and the value immediately afterwards. In this we think there was no error. Prima fade, at least, he had shown sufficient to make his testimony admissible. He testifies to his residence near the land, to the knowledge of its value at the time the railway was located across the land. If the railway company desired a more complete statement, it should have cross-examined the witness upon that point. The fact that it failed to make an extended cross-examination upon that point leads to the inference that such cross-examination would have shown the witness to be thoroughly qualified. This ground of objection, therefore, is unavailing.
The judgment is clearly right, and is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.