Warner v. Manski

Decided December 15, 1855

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1855-12-15

<p>ERROR TO MORGAN.</p> <p>Where a bill of exceptions does not show what the question propounded to a witness was, it is difficult for this court to say that the Circuit Court erred in refusing to permit the witness to answer it.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1910

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Skinner, J.

¶1The bill of exceptions in this" case shows that the plaintiff below had examined a witness in chief; and the defendant, with the avowed purpose of discrediting the witness on cross-examination, asked him a leading question in reference to a matter as to which the plaintiff had not examined him, and that the court would not permit the question to be answered.

¶2The refusal of the court to allow the question to be answered is assigned for error. What the question was does not appear. It may have been impertinent, and the matter inquired about wholly irrelevant to the issue and in no manner important touching the credibility of the witness.

¶3We cannot say the eourt erred, without knowing what the question propounded was. Miller v. Houcke et al., 1 Scam. 501; Russell v. Martin, 2 Scam. 492; Hays v. Smith, 3 Scam. 427.

¶4Judgment affirmed.