McGrath v. Heman Construction Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Leo S. Rassisur, Judge. (1) It was manifestly improper for plaintiffs’ counsel in Ms opening statement' to the jury, before .they were examined on their voir dire, to state as a fact that defendant “undermined the wall of plaintiffs’ house and that the house fell in, and finally had to be removed, so that the house is now totally destroyed down to the joists of the first floor,” and that he was “acquainting the jury with the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Leo S. Rassisur, Judge. (1) It was manifestly improper for plaintiffs’ counsel in Ms opening statement' to the jury, before .they were examined on their voir dire, to state as a fact that defendant “undermined the wall of plaintiffs’ house and that the house fell in, and finally had to be removed, so that the house is now totally destroyed down to the joists of the first floor,” and that he was “acquainting the jury with the facts,” instead of stating that plaintiffs expected to prove such facts, or that such was plaintiffs’ contention, and it…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts).- — First. When the panel was being examined on voir dire, counsel for plaintiffs made statements that are claimed to have been prejudicial. It is sufficient to say that objection having been made to these remarks, the court should have checked counsel, but we do not think that failure to do so -in this instance constitutes reversible error. We notice it now only to prevent its recurrence on a new trial, if one is had.
Second. The second error 'assigned must be sustained. One of the respondents in the case, as also a witness for respondents, over the objection and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- City of Aurora v. Firemans' Fund InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- McGrath v. Heman Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914