Pollock v. Watts

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Pollock, from a, judgment against them in favor of appellee for an injury to appellee in a collision between the automobile of Mrs. Pollock, which was being driven by her husband, and the motorcycle of appellee. The undisputed facts are as follows: Mr. Pollock left their home on the morning of the accident in the wife’e car. His objective was a cemetery where his mother was buried.

When they got near the corner of Oalhoun and McHenry Streets, Mrs. Pollock got out of the car to go to her sister’s nearby. Mr. Pollock had an appointment to meet his brother at his sister’s store near the corner above mentioned, for the purpose of going with them to their mother’s grave. On inquiring at the house, Mr. Pollock found that his brother was not there, and, after Mrs. P'ollock left the car, he proceeded alone in the car towards his brother’s home; having told his sister to be ready. Shortly after this the accident happened.

The disputed questions in the case are: a. Was it the purpose of Mrs. Pollock to go with the brother and sister to their mother’s grave? b. If so; was this so far a matter of Mrs. Pollock’s business or pleasure as to constitute Mr. P'ollock her agent in the operation of the car at the time of the accident ? On the first point, the only testimony pointed out by appellee as tending to show that Mrs. Pollock was to1 be one of the party to visit the cemetery is the following: Mr. Pollock, being on the stand, was asked: “Q. By what right were you operating that automobile on that day?

A. By my own right. I simply took it; we were going to the ⁴⁰⁵ cemetery that Sunday morning; I was going down to my sister's; I had an appointment with my brother there; he was not there and in the meantime I asked my wife to- go along and if she wanted to go along to the cemetery, and she said no, she was going to her sister’s.” There was a motion here to strike out the conversation, which was granted. There was-an exception to this ruling, but it was not made the subject of a bill of exception. There is also the testimony of the witness- William Á.

TTelber, as to a conversation he had with Mrs. Pollock after the accident. lie said: “Mrs. Trapolsky and Airs. Pollock came down hunting for me-and was excited and said, ‘T could not see you, I had a little boy looking for you’; they came back and made another trip and located me and after they located me she said, ‘Don’tgo up and swear,so hard, don’t go to the station house.’ I hadn’t gone to the station house; all I did I told the officer what I had seen. I didn’t go to the station house; she told me he had just let her out at the corner and going to get- a friend to go to the cemetery and come back there. Q. Where was he going for the friend ?

A. Going to- East Baltimore, I think, and coming back to go to the cemetery. Q. Who> is Airs. Trapolsky? A. That lady who keeps the store across the street where she ivas left out.

Q. Is she any relation to Air. Pollock ? A. I believe she is Air. Pollock’s sister.” We do not find anything substantia] in Helber’s testimony above quoted tending to show that it was Mrs. Pollock’s pair-pose to go to the cemetery.

Much was said in the argument about the improbability of Pollock’s coming back to Calhoun and AIcHenry streets, not in the direction of the cemetery from his brother’s house, for any other purpose than to take in his wife again. But this argument overlooks the fact that Airs.