Griffin v. Jacobsen

HOUSER, P. J.

Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants for the purpose of recovering a judgment against them for damages that were alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs as the result of a collision that occurred between an automobile that was owned and operated by them, and an automobile that was owned by defendant Hansen, in which he was then riding, but which at that time was not being driven by him. From a judgment that was rendered against both defendants, Hansen has appealed to this court.

The principal criticism that appellant presents to the judgment is that, over the objection of defendants thereto, a court reporter who had taken stenographic notes of testimony that theretofore had been given by each of the defendants in a criminal action in which Jacobsen was the defendant, was permitted to read a part of such notes in evidence in the instant action. As is shown by the bill of exceptions herein, the said testimony consisted of the following statements, to wit:

“That he [Jacobsen] and Ole Hansen left Los Angeles on or about 7:00 p. m. of August 24th, 1935, for the purpose of going to Mojave, California,- that both Tobias Emanus Jacobsen and Ole Hansen had indulged in a few beers and that Ole Hansen had indulged in a few drinks of whiskey; that

Ole Hansen

was driving the automobile from the time it left Los Angeles until it had proceeded approximately three miles North of Saugus on Mint Canyon Road, headed for Palmdale, California; that at that point, Ole Hansen -requested Tobias Emanus Jacobsen to drive the automobile because he, Ole Hansen, was dizzy, and that Tobias Emanus

[70]

Jacobsen took the wheel of the automobile at that point and continued to drive and was driving at the time of the impact. That Ole Hansen testified in the same proceeding on -said October 21st, 1935, that he was not driving the Chrysler automobile at the time of the collision with the Ford of the Griffins but that Jacobsen was driving. The Chrysler car belonged to him, Ole Hansen.”

The bill of exceptions also shows that:

“To the introduction of this evidence, objection was made on behalf of Ole Hansen and Tobias E. Jacobsen, on the grounds that it was hearsay and not the best of evidence, and did not tend to prove any of the issues before the Court, which objection was overruled, and a motion having been made to strike such testimony as being hearsay, and not the best of evidence, and being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, was denied.”