ROMEO et al. v. UNITED STATES

ROMEO et al. v. UNITED STATES. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 5, 1928. No. 5131. Witnesses <§=75 — On objection to competency of witness, party offering must state what he expects to prove by him. Where objection is made to competency of a witness to testify, the party offering him is required to state what he expects to prove by him. 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. [MAJORITY — GILBERT, Circuit Judge.] 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.