GRIMES v. GRIMES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 35753.

Attorney(S)

E.C. Fishel, of Hattiesburg, and Homer Currie, of Raleigh, for appellant. After the defendant had introduced part of her witnesses and after the court had refused to admit the introduction of the depositions, the defendant offered to testify as a witness in her behalf and upon objection by the counsel for the complainant the court refused to permit the defendant to testify, and again after the defendant had introduced the witness, Ed Vance, the defendant offered to testify as a witness to corroborate her witness, Vance, and again on objection of complainant the court refused to permit her to testify. It will be noted from the record that no alternative was offered the witness of testifying first or leaving the courtroom but it was merely through inadvertence that the defendant was not called until after some of her witnesses had testified; therefore, we respectfully submit, as if there had been no other error committed by the court, that the case should be reversed for this one fact alone. Wilson v. Peacock, 111 Miss. 116, 71 So. 296; French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386; Bernheim v. Dibrell, 66 Miss. 199, 5 So. 693; Smith v. Team (Miss.), 16 So. 492; Kline v. Hazzlerigg (Miss.), 21 So. 11. E.L. Dent, of Collins, for appellee. As to the appellant not testifying, we wish only to say that when the case was called and all parties announced ready for trial and all witnesses sworn, the rule was invoked and if appellant had wished to testify, she should have testified before her other witnesses were placed on the stand, and there was no excuse offered why she was not put on the stand first as a witness in her defense. Argued orally by E.C. Fishel, for appellant, and by E.L. Dent, for appellee.

Judges

Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

GRIMES v. GRIMES.

TRIAL.

Where rule excluding witnesses was invoked in divorce action against wife, but wife was not given the alternative of testifying first or leaving the courtroom before introducing her witnesses, fact that wife remained in courtroom and introduced several witnesses before offering to testify herself did not warrant refusal to permit wife to testify.

Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding in which the appellee, the husband, was granted a divorce from the appellant, his wife. When the appellee rested his case the appellant, after introducing several witnesses, offered to testify herself, but on objection by counsel for the appellee the court refused to permit her to do so. This is the only ruling of the court below which justifies a reversal of its decree.

The rule excluding witnesses from the courtroom had been invoked but the appellant remained in the courtroom and introduced several witnesses who testified in her behalf before offering to testify herself. This did not justify the court's refusal to permit her to testify, for the reason that before introducing her witnesses she was not "given the alternative of testifying first or leaving the courtroom, whichever she chose," as required by Wilson v. Peacock, 111 Miss. 116, 71 So. 296.

Reversed and remanded.

GRIMES v. GRIMES.

Comments