35 Ala. 247 | Ala. | 1859
The evidence conduced to show, that the contract on which the plaintiff relied for a recovery, was made in the summer of 1854. The question propounded by the defendant to the witness Roberts, called upon him to state, whether, at a time subsequent to the making of the contract, the defendant “ had in his employment sufficient to do the business of the house.” The matter thus called for is, to say the least of it, prima facie, irrelevant. Its relevancy was not shown, nor offered to be shown. There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question, a part of which called for this irrelevant matter.
Judgment affirmed.
After the delivery of the foregoing opinion, on petition for a rehearing by the appellant’s counsel, the following opinion was pronounced:
We adhere to the views expressed in the
Judgment affirmed.