Stickney v. Smith, Baker & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — The Court below erred in excluding the testimony contemplated by the question, “"Who were engaged in cutting these logs in the winter of 1859-60 ?” The witness had testified in chief that the logs were cut in the winter of 1859-60, on the St. Croix river. This was a proper cross-examination to test the witness’ means of knowledge, and his recollection.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. Points and authorities of Appellants: First. — The Court below erred in excluding the testimony contemplated by the question, “"Who were engaged in cutting these logs in the winter of 1859-60 ?” The witness had testified in chief that the logs were cut in the winter of 1859-60, on the St. Croix river. This was a proper cross-examination to test the witness’ means of knowledge, and his recollection. You say the logs were cut in 1859-60. How do you know? "Who cut them? &c. were the most natural and apposite questions to the cross-examination.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oowrt.
Emmett, C.J.
The first objection urged by the Appellants is, that on the cross-examination of a witness who had stated in chief that the logs were cut on the St. Croix river, in the winter of 1859-60, the Court excluded this question : “ Who were engaged in cutting their logs in the winter of 1859-60 ?” The question was excluded on the ground of immateriality, and because it was not a cross examination.
When, where, or by what particular persons these logs were cut, was not material to any issue in the case. The answer alleges that they were “ got out” by Jackman and Gardener, and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Courson v. ParkerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1894