Giles v. Wright
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hob. John "Whytock, Circuit Judge. AVliile the court may require a party in interest, where the evidence is nearly or equally balaueed, or in some other instances, to testify, yet we submit that, in this case, Wright not having been required by the court to testify, it was error in the court to permit him to do so. See, Howland will case, reported in the July No. 1870, American Law Review, p. 656, et seq.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. Hob. John "Whytock, Circuit Judge. AVliile the court may require a party in interest, where the evidence is nearly or equally balaueed, or in some other instances, to testify, yet we submit that, in this case, Wright not having been required by the court to testify, it was error in the court to permit him to do so. See, Howland will case, reported in the July No. 1870, American Law Review, p. 656, et seq. It is contended by counsel of appellant, that the circuit court erred in permitting Wright, who was plaintiff, to testifiy. The Constitution does not…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Weldon E. Wright, the appellee in this court, appealed to the Pulaski circuit court from a judgment of the probate court refusing to allow a demand exhibited by him against the estate of Albert W. Webb, deceased, where, upon trial anew, he recovered judgment; and the administrator, Josiah.M. Giles, appealed to this court. .
The defense, opposed, by the administrator, was, that -the claim had been settled in a former trial between the intestate and the claimant; and he proved that the intestate'broaght an action of debt against the claimant in the Pulaski circuit court, to which defendant…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Morris v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Pierce v. PierceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963