Romeo v. United States
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
GILBERT, Circuit Judge.
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 expeets 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 Okl. 158 , 120 P. 1013 ; Evans v. Smith, 50 Okl. 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.