State v. Spengler
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court first district of Hinds county. On motion. The appellees moved the court to strike from the record the stenographer’s notes, because the same were not authenticated by the judge of the court below, and because, as was claimed, there was no bill of exceptions. The facts involved in the motion, together with the state of the record, are shown by the 'opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court first district of Hinds county. On motion. The appellees moved the court to strike from the record the stenographer’s notes, because the same were not authenticated by the judge of the court below, and because, as was claimed, there was no bill of exceptions. The facts involved in the motion, together with the state of the record, are shown by the 'opinion of the court. Our contention is, that under the act of 1896 a bill of exceptions is still necessary in order to bring the stenographer’s notes before this court, and that, too, whether the notes, as such, be signed by…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
Regard being paid to the evidence of the plaintiff alone, and giving it, taken all together, such weight as it was fairly entitled to, did it make out, or tend to make out, the case of the plaintiff ? And could and should a court permit a verdict for plaintiff on that evidence to stand? We are clearly of opinion that both of these questions must be answered affirmatively, and so answering, we must declare the action of the court in excluding all the evidence of the plaintiff to be erroneous.
*139The evidence of Hugh Guiney himself — evidently a not willing witness for plaintiff — on his…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Armstrong v. WhiteheadMississippi Supreme Court · 1902
- Chenault v. Adams Machine Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1910
- Alexander v. FloodMississippi Supreme Court · 1900