Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. Lanahan
Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. Lanahan
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
In the absence of any other error we do not think that the judgment should be reversed. It does not appear that there wras any substantial conflict in the evidence of the plaintiff and the physician, for he admitted- that he had some conversation with her about going to the country; she saying that it was his suggestion and he saying that it was Dr. Friedrich’s suggestion which he indorsed. The court promptly told the jury to disregard the occurrence.
Defendant’s counsel claimed that this statement of the court was not pointed and positive enough to relieve 'the impression from the minds of the jury, but the counsel made no request for a more specific instruction. Had the court’s attention been called thereto, there is no doubt that he would have made it. Counsel chose, however, to move the discharge of the jury, which the court overruled.
The judgment and discretion of the trial court are to be
Finding no error the judgment is affirmed with costs.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- WASHINGTON RAILWAY & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LANAHAN
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Teim,; Discontinuance; Misconduct of Counsel; Objections and Exceptions. Where, in a personal injury action, the plaintiff’s testimony and that of the defendant’s physician were in conflict as to whether the physician had advised the plaintiff to seek rest in the country, she testifying he had done so, and he testifying that he had merely agreed with her own physician’s suggestion to that effect; and upon plaintiff’s counsel remarking in the presence of the jury that the company’s physician had asked him to be discharged from further attendance on the trial, and not to call the other physician again, the counsel for the defendant moved for a dismissal of the action, which motion the court denied, but stated that he would instruct the jury to disregard the remarks of counsel, whereupon the defendant’s counsel reserved an exception, it was held that there was no error justifying a reversal of a judgment for the plaintiff, and that if the statement of the court to the jury was not pointed or positive enough, counsel for the defendant should have asked for a more satisfactory instruction.