Leet v. Wilson
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
Notice to Testify.—Where notice was given of a party’s intention to testify in his own behalf, and the notice specified with sufficient particularity some points pertinent to the issues upon which he would give evidence, and also stated generally that he would testify to other facts relative to the issues, and on the trial a general objection was interposed to his giving any testimony under the notice— which objection was overruled, and the record does not set out the testimony ; held, that it will not be presumed that the party gave testimony on any matters except those particularly1 specified in the notice, and that the objection was properly overruled.
Objection to Witness.—Under such notice a party has a right to testify on such matters as are specified in the notice, and a general objection to his giving testimony as a witness is not well taken.
Action for Work and Labor.—In an action to recover the value of services, and work and labor performed under a contract, the plaintiff has the right to prove the value of the services of an assistant employed by him, and who performed the same work plaintiff contracted to do, unless it appears by the nature or terms of the employment that the services of a particular person were contracted for, and that no other person could, under the contract, fill the place of the employé. Objection to Evidence.—A general objection that evidence is inadmissible should be disregarded, as it amounts to no more than that the evidence is illegal. The grounds of an objection should be specified and fully pointed out.
By the Court, Rhodes, J. On the trial of this cause before the referee, the plaintiff was examined as a witness in his own behalf. The defendant objected to his testifying on the ground that the notice was “vague and uncertain,” that it did not “inform the defendants what facts or charges, claims, or indebtedness, the said witness is called to support,” and was not in conformity to the statute of 1861. The objection was not taken to his testifying to any particular point, but was directed generally to his being permitted to give any testimony under the notice.
The record does not purport to set out any of his testimony, but states that the “referee overruled the said objections, and permitted the plaintiff to give material testimony in his own behalf.” The complaint is simply the common count for work and labor, but on the demand of the defendants the plaintiff furnished a bill of particulars, setting forth the work performed by him on the railroad of the defendants, in laying the track, building and repairing the bridges, culverts, and cattle guards; in acting as the engineer, and repairing the grade; also the value of such labor. Portions of the services mentioned in the notice, in respect to which the plaintiff’s testimony was to be taken, are evidently the same as those set forth in his bill of particulars, although set forth in a different form.
The notice is not as precise in all respects as it might be, but it describes the services as having been performed for the defendants in the construction of the railroad mentioned in the bill of particulars. It is not necessary to state in the notice that the party offering himself as a witness will give all the testimony that may be required to entitle him to recover upon the whole case, or upon any given point in the case, or that he will state all the facts in relation to any certain point. He may offer to prove by his testimony either the time, the place, the character, or the value of the performance of any work, and rely upon other testimony to prove [401]the other facts necessary to be proven in order to charge the opposite party.
The plaintiff offered his own testimony to prove the laying of the first six miles of the track, the manner of doing the work, the time employed therein, and the value of his services in performing the work; also his personal services in locating the line of the railroad, and the character, extent, and value of the services; also other facts connected with items stated in his bill of particulars. It was proper for him .to give his testimony in relation to the facts above mentioned, and as the statement neither sets forth the testimony of the plaintiff nor the points about which he testified, it will not be presumed that he testified as to any facts not properly stated in the notice.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)