[Download] "Mackey v. State Indiana" by 771. Supreme Court of Indiana No. 27 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Mackey v. State Indiana
• Author : 771. Supreme Court of Indiana No. 27
• Release Date : January 14, 1942
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 53 KB

Description

SHAKE, J. The state appropriated for highway purposes certain real estate belonging to the appellant. Both parties excepted to the report of appraisers fixing the value of the land taken at $8250. A jury awarded the appellant $3850 and he has appealed. The only error properly assigned is the overruling of his motion for a new trial. A number of the appellant's propositions relating to alleged errors in respect to the admission or rejection of evidence must be ignored because the motion for a new trial did not set out the objections to the questions complained of. Brown v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 106, 23 N.E.2d 267. Deming Hotel Co. v. Sisson (1940), 216 Ind. 587, 24 N.E.2d 912. It was not error to exclude the testimony of a witness to the effect that he would have purchased for a specified sum the property taken by the State. Value may not be so established. 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 182c, p. 887. A State's witness was permitted, over objection, to describe the property as he observed it two weeks before the trial. If there had been a change in conditions after the taking and before the witness' visit, that was a proper subject to be developed by cross-examination or in rebuttal. Reasonable limitations on the scope of cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we cannot say that there was an abuse in restricting the cross-examination of a witness in an inquiry as to the value of the land to those elements of value shown to exist by his testimony in chief. McDonald et al. v. McDonald et al. (1895), 142 Ind. 55, 41 N.E. 336. On the trial a witness for the State was permitted to give his opinion of the value of the land, over the objection that the question did not take into account the value of a structure that had been razed after the State took the property. The State was entitled to show the different elements of value and the objection went to the weight rather than the admissibility of the testimony.

Download Free Books "Mackey v. State Indiana" PDF ePub Kindle