DocketNumber: No. 9806.
Citation Numbers: 243 S.W. 633
Judges: DUNKLIN, J.
Filed Date: 4/15/1922
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
I cannot concur in the reversal of this judgment on the ground that the trial court erred in permitting impeaching testimony to contradict the witness Furr in his statement that "I did not look at that; I just kept my eyes on the work." Plaintiff had the right to ask Furr, his adversary's witness, if the ground was not pretty badly washed. Furr's answer was to the effect that he did not know. This was an important matter, involving the question of the amount of damages to which plaintiff was entitled. Thereupon, in the view of the *Page 638
writer, it was permissible to introduce proof that Furr upon another occasion had stated that the ground was pretty badly washed and damaged by the flood. Nor do I think that the fact that the testimony upon which the impeachment was predicated was brought out on cross-examination, or was negative in its character, in any way affects the rule here stated. Craft v. State (Tex.Cr.App.)