Conner v. Holland
Texas Commission of Appeals
Appeal from Travis county. Opinion by Watts, J„ Statement.— This case was decided by the supreme court in 1877. The judgment was then reversed because the court below excluded the evidence of the wife of appellant offered in his behalf. At the same term a rehearing ivas granted, and the case is now before the court for disposition.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion.'—• In the case of Gee v. Scott, 48 Tex., 510, it was held that the statute then in force removing the disabilities of parties as witnesses did not render the husband and wife competent as witnesses for or against each other. The ground for the exclusion of such evidence is not alone that of interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, but that public policy required its exclusion. - We conclude that there was no error in excluding the evidence of the wife of appellant offered in his behalf. Of course, since the adoption of the Revised Statutes the rule is otherwise. Appellant…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gee v. ScottTexas Supreme Court · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hutton v. PedersonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913