Post v. State ex rel. Hill

<p>Witness. — Competency.—Physician and Patient. — The incompetency of a physician to testify to matters which he learned in his professional capacity, over the objection of his patient, extends to matters -which he learned from mere observation as well as to the declarations of the patient.</p> <p>Same. — Physician and Patient. — A patient cannot be compelled to divulge communications between her physician and herself, where the physician could not properly divulge the same over the patient’s objection.</p> <p>Continuance. —Evidence.—Witness. — Competency. — Physician and Patient. — Bastardy.—That the testimony of a physician, as to facts learned in his professional capacity, to obtain which a continuance is sought in a bastardy proceeding, would be competent in the absence of an objection by the relatrix, does not render the refusal of the continuance erroneous, where the relatrix by objecting thereto manifests her purpose to object to the testimony if offered.</p> <p>Same. — Appellate Procedure. — Abuse of Discretion. — A judgment will not be reversed because of the refusal of a continuance, unless it clearly appears that the discretion vested in the trial court has been abused.</p> <p>Same. — Absent Witness. — Necessary Allegation. — An application for a continuance to obtain the testimony of an absent witness is properly refused where it does not state facts which indicate that the testimony of the witness can be procured within a reasonable time, especially where the applicant does not even assert a belief that it can be so procured.</p> <p>Instruction to Jury. — Uncontroverted Fact. — The statement of the court in an instruction that a certain material fact is not controverted does not constitute error, where an admission of the existence of such fact was expressly made upon the record.</p>