. In Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. Department One. Cucamonga Vineyard Co. et al., plaintiff vs. San Antonio Water Co., defendant; no. 9187 . to the easterly side of the cienogaD and aroand t ere and traveled up Uiat hi(^h But you didnt go up on the lull? A. Nc; not on U e actual siiLjDiii,. !DatwaL furt er east th^n th4loap diows, Do you where t at bluff or dike towhich you referred in that testii/jony ie? A. I rofiieLiber t at testimony very cleciiy. I rurasmher tliatI ^oniad iho opinion— Q, Mr, Purcell, please ann er rry question fi
. In Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, State of California. Department One. Cucamonga Vineyard Co. et al., plaintiff vs. San Antonio Water Co., defendant; no. 9187 . to the easterly side of the cienogaD and aroand t ere and traveled up Uiat hi(^h But you didnt go up on the lull? A. Nc; not on U e actual siiLjDiii,. !DatwaL furt er east th^n th4loap diows, Do you where t at bluff or dike towhich you referred in that testii/jony ie? A. I rofiieLiber t at testimony very cleciiy. I rurasmher tliatI ^oniad iho opinion— Q, Mr, Purcell, please ann er rry question first. I want firstto get the location of t>ie bluff or .he dike elludsd toin that testimony, and if you ioc te it on thi& exhibit 1,I wish you v/ould show ±b //-ere is the place vi^iich .vas there mentioned as the bluff or dike. Mr. Briti: Objected to at; irrelevant, iiuateri&l arid not yrop-9r crojiii The Court: Overruled. Plaintiffs exc-pt. fJr. „: On the further ground tJ-iat counnel ia cisaumingIbliat the testimtny wnich l-ias j,>st ben read to tl^e witness ?hows that the v/itrieas in the catie r-ferred to teKtifisH Ici51 ti-ere waB dike, when in fact \ tire is no such s owing mad&. ^R-ie Court: ve spettka of it as a bluff. Mr. liaskeli: Yea; he speaks of & biuff but i^e doesnt stydike onco in his testixiony. Q. Can you ano/e-- the question wViere thbt bluff or dike ,i^iiclievar it was, to iidiich you allude in your teaticionythere is located? Mr. Britt: The Oourt overruled part of iriy objection with suchproraptitude tbiit I didnt haye tinie to oomplete the objection ((not saying V at the Court is -^rong), but I want lx> add some-thifig to it. T^tit is, if it is for purpose of impeachingthe witness by S owing stateriijnta Bade inconsistent withhis pr^aent testimony, the s ateaient ou-ht to be reaa or 8:X)vmto the witness and that h© be asked if ho ^de triat statement;and I think it should also appear tViat he hi*f. oade s
Size: 1287px × 1941px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookidinsuperiorcourto03cuca
