Hatter v. McMunn
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By FUNK, PJ.
Counsel for defendant complains of nine errors in the trial court prejudicial to de*603fendant, four of which pertain to the charge. We will discuss said claimed errors in the order set forth in defendant’s brief.
1. Said counsel claim the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the witness Englehart as to a conversation he had with the defendant at the hospital some days after the accident.
The witness Englehart testified that defendant said that he had on his golf shoes and that “his golf shoes interfered with his driving” and that defendant further said “that it was his…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dewert v. Cincinnati Milling Machine Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1933
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. Van OrmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Pratt v. ByersOhio Court of Appeals · 1931
- Hughes v. HanselmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1933
- Standard Oil Co. v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 1932
3Cited by2 opinions
- Abbott v. CockeOhio Court of Appeals · 1938
- McVay v. Travelers Insurance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1970