[DOWNLOAD] "Francis v. Heidel" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Francis v. Heidel
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 01, 1937
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
Personal Injuries ? Automobile Accident ? Appeal and Error ? Diminution of Record on Appeal ? When Proper ? Injection of Matter of Liability Insurance into the Case ? Harmless Error ? Costs of Preparation of Supplemental Transcript on Motion for Diminution of Record ? When Properly Chargeable to Respondent on Affirmance of Judgment. Appeal and Error ? Diminution of Record on Appeal ? When Proper. 1. Since a trial court may not be put in error on a partial record, the respondent in an appeal case may under Rule IV, subdivision 4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, suggest a diminution of the record, and where consideration of the omitted matter is essential for a proper - Page 581 determination of the alleged error, the motion for diminution will be granted. Same ? Personal Injuries ? Automobile Accident ? Injection of Matter of Liability Insurance into Case ? Diminution of Record to Show Voir Dire Examination of Jury Allowed. 2. Under the above rule, held that where, in an automobile accident case, the error complained of had to do with the alleged improper injection of the question of liability insurance into the case, presenting incidentally the question as to which one of the parties first brought the matter to the attention of the jury, diminution of the record by presenting the voir dire examination showing that appellants attorney himself did so, allowed. Personal Injuries ? Automobile Accident ? Injection of Liability Insurance Alleged as Error ? Circumstances Under Which Error Harmless. 3. Where, in a personal injury action based on an automobile accident, after counsel for defendant had advised court and jury that his client was insured against liability and questioned the jurymen as to whether they had any bias or prejudice against insurance companies, plaintiffs counsel elicited from his client that defendant had said that "he would have liked to see me get it [the amount sued for in a former trial] from the insurance company," the incident, if error, held harmless, counsel for defendant having first injected the objectionable matter into the case, particularly so in view of the fact that the trial court advised the jury that the matter of insurance was not to be considered by them. Same ? Diminution of Record ? When Cost Incident to Preparation of Supplemental Transcript Properly Chargeable to Respondent on Affirmance of Judgment. 4. Where the respondent failed to have the voir dire examination of the jury (necessary to a decision of the case) included in the settled bill of exceptions, necessitating the preparation of a supplemental transcript on his application for diminution of the record, the expense incident thereto held properly chargeable to respondent on affirmance of the judgment.