Opinion
There was no abuse of discretion by the court in sustaining the objection to an irrelevant quotation from the Scriptures made by the plaintiff in argument to the jury. The court's charge on the inference to be drawn from the absence of a witness who was not shown to be available and the court's rulings on evidence concerning permissible cross-examination were not erroneous.
Argued June 9, 1966
Decided July 12, 1966
Action to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's decedent, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford. County and tried to the jury before Covello, J.; verdict and judgment for the defendants and appeal by the plaintiff. No error.
John P. McKeon, for the appellant (plaintiff).
William L. Hadden, with whom, on the brief, were Clarence A. Hadden, David C. Hadden and Thomas J. Corradino, for the appellees (defendants).
The plaintiff's decedent, a boy of about one month under six years of age, died as a result of injuries sustained when he ran into the roadway and collided with the left front of a truck operated by the defendant Conrad Grant. Upon the divergent and disputed evidence of the parties, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff has pursued but four of his claims of error on this appeal.
On the day of the accident, one of the passengers on the front seat of the truck was Cyrus Anderson. Like Grant, Anderson was then an employee of the named defendant. He was not, however, produced as a witness at the trial. There was no evidence that Anderson was either in the state or available at the time of trial. The court correctly charged on the inference to be drawn if the jury could conclude from the evidence that the witness was available. Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672, 675, 165 A.2d 598; Yavis v. Sullivan, 137 Conn. 253, 263, 76 A.2d 99.
The court sustained the objection of the defendants to the plaintiff's question to a witness on cross-examination. The plaintiff made no attempt to state his claim of admissibility. The ruling cannot be held erroneous. Casalo v. Claro, 147 Conn. 625, 630, 165 A.2d 153.
A police officer who investigated the accident testified for the plaintiff. He testified that he had examined the truck after the accident. On cross-examination, he was asked if he had found anything defective with the truck. As the plaintiff claimed that the brakes were defective and the speedometer broken, the question was proper cross-examination. The witness answered that he found nothing defective.
There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sustaining the defendants' objection to the plaintiff's argument ostensibly quoting from the Scriptures. The particular quotation was entirely irrelevant to the issues, in the trial. Bryar v. Wilson, 152 Conn. 162, 165, 204 A.2d 831.