173 N.W. 745 | S.D. | 1919
The complaint in this action alleges that defendants entered into a conspiracy to defraud plaintiffs by selling them certain cattle which defendants knew to have been stolen. The cattle were brought into the neighborhood where plaintiffs and defendants lived by the defendant Kindred and one Hudspeth. Defendant Bowyer, knowing the cattle had been stolen,
It is contended by appellant that there is no evidence tending to prove a conspiracy by the defendants, and that, the property involved being personal property, respondents can look only to their immediate grantor for damages.
It is 'claimed 'by plaintiffs, and there is an abundance of evi- dence in the record to warrant a finding by the jury to that
“The jury are instructed that the plaintiffs’ counsel, during the progress of the case, asked witness Mrs. Bennet as to the general reputation of the defendant Bowyer for truth and veracity, who testified that it was good. The plaintiffs thereby made the witness their witness upon that subject; no other testimony having been offered upon that subject. The reputation of the defendant Bowyer for truth and veracity is therefore establshed as good, for the purposes of this case.”
The court refused to give the instruction, and such refusal is assigned as error. This instruction was properly refused. The effect of the instruction, if given, would have been to tell the jury that they must accept as true all the testimony given by appellant. Whether the effect of the question and answer was to bar the plaintiffs from further attempt to impeach appellant, it is not necessary to determine. No-such attempt was made, and
No error appearing upon the record, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.