Reinman v. Worley
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; Thos. C. Trimble, Judge on Exchange; 1. The court erred in instructing the jury: “If you believe any witness has testified falsely to any material fact, you can disregard that testimony altogether, or you may accept such of his testimony as you believe to be true, and disregard such as you believe to be false.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; Thos. C. Trimble, Judge on Exchange; 1. The court erred in instructing the jury: “If you believe any witness has testified falsely to any material fact, you can disregard that testimony altogether, or you may accept such of his testimony as you believe to be true, and disregard such as you believe to be false.” The second clause gives the jury the option of disregarding the entire testimony or only such portion as they believe to be false. 94 S. W. 47. 2. The 4th instruction requested by appellants is correct, and ought to have been given. If…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
This is an action instituted by Mrs. Mary Worley against the defendants, Reinman & Wolfort, to recover the value of a cow whose death is alleged to have been caused by the wrongful act of defendants’ agent. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and defendants have appealed.
Defendants operate a livery stable in Little Rock and maintain a pasture in Argenta for the purpose of pasturing mules. The pasture is located on the bank of the Arkansas River and is fenced on three sides. The fences running at right angles with the river are built up to the high water mark, but there is no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bruder v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Bennefield v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
3Cited by3 opinions
- Griffin v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Cagle v. MonroeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1989