(Download) "George Wilderspin v. Bewley Mills" by Fort Worth No. 15758 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: George Wilderspin v. Bewley Mills
- Author : Fort Worth No. 15758 Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
- Release Date : January 15, 1957
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
On Motion for Rehearing Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing in which he directs our attention to our failure to consider
appellee's cross-points that the trial court erred in admitting over its objection the testimony of appellant that in his
opinion the feeding of the chunkets caused the damage to his cattle, and that the court erred in excluding proof offered by
appellee that appellant had been indicted for and had pleaded guilty to charges of running a public gambling house; and appellant
says that under Rule 324, T.R.C.P., it is our duty on this appeal to consider those cross-points, and he asks that both be
overruled. We agree that we should pass on them. We think it was error to permit appellant to testify that in his opinion the cause of the disease and death of his cattle
was "these Bewley chunkets I fed." That was the very issue to be decided by the jury. It is believed that under the situation
presented by this record, only a medical expert could testify to such opinion. Appellant did not qualify as an expert on the
effect upon cattle of trichloroethylene in their feed. He did not profess to know anything about it. He relied upon circumstances
to prove that the chemical was in the feed consumed by his cattle, and offered experts in veterinary medicine to give their
opinions as to the effect of such chemical in cattle feed, as well as their opinion as to the cause of the damage to appellant's
cattle. We are aware of authorities holding that experienced cattlemen may give their opinions as to factors involved in bringing
about deteriorating conditions of cattle, when it appears that they are better qualified than the average juror on the subject
under investigation; but we are not able to agree that a cattleman, however experienced in raising and feeding cattle, may
give his opinion on a matter requiring scientific knowledge, and where he does not profess to have such knowledge. It amounts
to permitting appellant to say, in effect, that he had examined the findings of the chemist and the medical experts, and they
were correct.