The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Coles (P) sued Harsch (D) for the alienation of the affections of his former wife. One of D's principal witnesses was Thompson, who essentially testified that D's conduct toward P's wife was no different from his conduct toward any of the other women in the social group of which P, D, and Thompson and their wives were all members. Nothing tending to discredit Thompson was brought out on cross-examination. On rebuttal, P was permitted to testify over D's objection that P had visited Thompson at the garage where he worked, and Thompson had told him that, on a particular trip, the conduct of D and P's wife toward each other was disgraceful. P stated that the evidence went to Thompson's credibility. D argued that if P was using the evidence to impeach Thompson, it was inadmissible because P failed to lay a proper foundation for it by asking Thompson about the conversation during cross-examination.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.