85 Wash. 121 | Wash. | 1915
The defendant in this case was charged by information with the crime of grand larceny. The charging part of the information is substantially as follows: That
To the charge contained in the information, the defendant pleaded not guilty. A trial to the court and a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty. A motion for a new trial being made and overruled, the defendant appeals.
Another error assigned is, that the court, while the cashier of the North Bend State Bank was testifying, permitted him to answer the question as to the meaning of the term “kiting.” To this question an objection was interposed in this form: “I object.” The testimony as to this matter when offered would have been competent if the evidence at that time had shown that the appellant had been guilty of kiting; or had it been offered with the statement that later during the trial evidence would be offered that, after the two checks were deposited in the Sumas State Bank, the appellant so manipulated his accounts with that bank and the North Bend Bank as to bring him within the definition of the term. As already stated, the evidence in the record at no point shows that the appellant was kiting the funds from one bank to the other. The testimony not being inadmissible for any purpose, the general objection was not sufficient to base an assignment of error upon for review in the appellate court. The trial court was entitled to know the ground of the objection. If the reason for the objection had been made
In the absence of an objection stating the grounds thereof, and the failure to interpose a motion to strike the testimony as to kiting because not properly connected with the transaction of the appellant, no error can be predicated upon the admission of that testimony.
It may be said in passing that the attorney who prepared the brief upon appeal and who presented the matter to this court was not the same attorney who appeared for the appellant in the trial court.
While there are other errors assigned, the two which have been- considered present the principal questions in the case. The other points urged in the appellant’s brief are without substantial merit.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Moms, C. J., Cuow, Eullerton, and Ei/lis, JJ., concur.