O'Rourke

O'Rourke v. Vennekohl

Caution
104 Cal. 254·1894 Cal. LEXIS 892·37 P. 930
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 1894No. 15542California565 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

Action for damages for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff, and from the judgment and order denying a motion for new trial the defendants appeal.

1. The court refused the following instruction requested by defendants: “If you shall find that the plaintiff has willfully misstated any fact concerning which she has been interrogated, then her testimony in ■other respects should be distrusted, and the jury may in such case disregard the whole of her evidence. So, also, if you shall find that any witness examined upon behalf of the plaintiff has willfully misstated any fact *256 concerning which he has been interrogated, then the testimony of such witness in other respects should be distrusted, and the jury may in such case disregard the whole of the evidence of such witness. Where a witness gives willfully false testimony the jury should treat all his testimony with distrust and suspicion, and reject all, unless convinced, notwithstanding the base character of the witness, that he has in other particulars sworn to the truth,” but instead charged the jury on this point that “A witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others.” While we…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.