Kern County Finance Co. v. Iriart

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action on a promissory note for $1,000 with interest at 10 per cent, dated November 14, 1934, payable on demand and signed by both defendants. The action was filed on July 6, 1936, and in their answer the defendants admitted execution of the note by failing to deny

[486]

the same, denied that there was any consideration, and, as an affirmative defense, alleged that for some time before and after November 14, 1934, the defendant James Iriart was employed by the plaintiff to purchase automobiles for it, that the $1,000 represented by the note was advanced to him as a revolving fund to be used in purchasing automobiles for the plaintiff and its agents and for expenses incidental thereto, and that said sum had been expended by him for the benefit of the plaintiff and fully accounted for. At the trial the plaintiff made formal proof of the execution of the note, delivery of the $1,000, demand for payment, and failure to pay. The remainder of the trial, which occupied five days, was consumed with the defense set up in the answer. The defendant James Iriart testified that he had unfortunately lost his account showing what he had done with the money. However, considerable opportunity was afforded the defendants to establish their defense in other ways, as shown by the time consumed in the trial and the length of the transcript, which contains nearly 500 pages. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and this appeal followed the judgment.

It would be impracticable and serve no useful purpose to consider in detail all of the many points raised by the appellants. It is first urged that they were unduly restricted on their

voir dire

examination of prospective jurors. In several of the instances complained of it fully appears that the court permitted the questions to be asked and answered. In one case a juror said he was not indebted to the respondent or to any of its members but that he had had a business transaction with that corporation more than five years before. An objection to a question as to what was the nature of that business was sustained. Not only was this matter rather remote, but the court offered to let counsel for appellants go into the question as to whether that old matter would have any influence on the present case. It further appears that the appellants challenged this juror and he did not sit in the case. A juror said he belonged to a fraternal organization to which some of the men in the respondent corporation belonged. An objection was then sustained to the question as to which of “these gentlemen” belonged to the organization, although the court offered to permit counsel to ask whether any officer of the respondent corporation belonged to the same organization. Not only does it