This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...5. A witness was permitted to testify, against the defendant's exception, in substance that his father, who was driving this coach, was killed as a result of the collision. The defendant argues that such evidence created a prejudice against it, drawing away the minds of the jury from the real issue, to its harm and injury. If the evidence was introduced for any such purpose, it was highly prejudicial. It was unfair, it was a wrong to the defendant, and should never have been admitted. On the other hand the plaintiff had a right to show all material facts, however great the prejudice aroused by their narration. The severity of the impact was such a fact, and the circumstances following from it might De material. There was evidence showing that the coach was struck "near the front wheels, turning the coach end on end and overturning it, and the nearest end of the coach was 10 feet from the track after it landed. The driver was thrown from his seat, over the coach." All the evidence is not reported, but from this brief statement of some of the facts in the case, in the opinion of the majority of the court it would appear that the evidence was admissible. If this testimony was inadmissible, either because there was no other evidence connected with it, showing it to be important, or it was introduced in such a way or at such a time as to demonstrate that its purpose was to arouse prejudice, it was for the excepting party to disclose sufficient evidence to show it was thus incompetent. Jones v. Smith, 121 Mass. 15. Woodward v. Eastman, 118 Mass. 403. 6. The motorman was a witness for the defendant. The plaintiff introduced parts of his evidence given at the inquest, in order to contradict hipa. The defendant, on redirect examination, ...