Grobstein v. Bishop
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
It is somewhat difficult to determine very precisely the mental attitude of the jury in this case. Counsel for plaintiff in error suggests that the case by reason of the manner of questioning of witnesses by counsel for the defendant in error, that it developed in the minds of the jury into a sort of a joke and was not considered seriously. However, we do not find anything in the record to indicate any improper conduct or anything along the lines suggested'upon the part of the attorney for defendant in error.
A very considerable portion of the testimony was directed, so far as the defendant’s…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Younce v. BakerOhio Court of Appeals · 1966