People v. Vinson

SHINN, P. J.

This is an action in eminent domain instituted by plaintiff state to acquire a parcel of property owned by defendant. The property is to be used for highway purposes. The only issue involved was the fair market value of the property on March 11, 1948. After a trial by jury, appellant was awarded $70,000 which was subsequently deposited with the clerk of the court and the state took possession of the real property. Defendant appeals from the judgment and purports to appeal from the order denying her motion for a new trial. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for a new trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 963), and the purported appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

Defendant was ably represented at the trial. She has additional counsel on the appeal. She complains that the court erred in permitting plaintiff’s counsel to cross-examine her expert witness as to the price of $57,500 paid by her for the property some three years before. No authority is cited which furnishes even slight support for this proposition and we find it to be devoid of merit. It is established practice on cross-examination to inquire of an expert witness the prices which are asked or have been paid for other similar lands, for the purpose of testing his knowledge and the weight to be given his opinion.

(Estate of Boss,

171 Cal. 64 [151 P. 1138];

Palladine

v.

Imperial Talley F. L. Assn.,

65 Cal.App. 727, 756 [225 P. 291] ;

City of San Luis Obispo

v.

Brizzolara,

100 Cal. 434, 437 [34 P. 1083];

City of Los Angeles

v.

Deacon,

119 Cal.App. 491 [7 P.2d 378].) Such cross-examination as we have here was held permissible in

East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.

v.

Kieffer,

99 Cal.App. 240, 251 [278 P. 476, 279 P. 178], where it was said: “For the purpose of testing the knowledge of such witnesses and impeaching their opinions as to values the court permitted the plaintiff to ask them, on cross-examination to state their knowledge of other sales of land in the