From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romeo v. United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 5, 1928
24 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1928)

Opinion

No. 5131.

March 5, 1928.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Western District of Washington; Jeremiah Neterer, Judge.

On petition for rehearing. Denied.

For former opinion, see 23 F.2d 551.

Before GILBERT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.


In a petition for rehearing the defendants cite authorities to the proposition that, where objection is made to the competency of a witness to testify, the party offering the witness is not required to state what he expects to prove by the witness. We find that the weight both of authority and reason is to the contrary (3 C.J. 829; Kischman v. Scott, 166 Mo. 214, 65 S.W. 1031; Hutchings v. Cobble, 30 Okla. 158, 120 P. 1013; Evans v. Smith, 50 Okla. 285, 150 P. 1096; Corcoran v. Poncini, 35 Ill. App. 130), and that in the federal courts the question is conclusively answered by the decision in Herencia v. Guzman, 219 U.S. 44, 31 S. Ct. 135, 55 L. Ed. 81, followed in Gustum v. Kradwell (C.C.A.) 270 F. 546.

The petition for rehearing is denied.


Summaries of

Romeo v. United States

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 5, 1928
24 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1928)
Case details for

Romeo v. United States

Case Details

Full title:ROMEO et al. v. UNITED STATES

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 5, 1928

Citations

24 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1928)

Citing Cases

Holman v. Lawhon

In the circumstances, we are unable to infer injury or prejudice to the appellee. In Romeo, et al. v. United…

HASS v. UNITED STATES

We need not pause to consider the question whether or not the appellant's wife was a competent witness in his…