Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 162 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 162 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Lester v. S. J. Alexander, Inc. (gactapp, 1972-10-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lester v. S. J. Alexander, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
"The best evidence of the expert witness’ opinion of the cost of reconstruction was his own testimony to that effect, not the worksheet which he had prepared in order to assist *474 him in presenting the testimony.” Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 117 Ga. App. 857, 858 ( 162 SE2d 304 ).
cited Cited "see" Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. Rhee
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 117 Ga. App. 857 (162 SE2d *473 304) (1968).
discussed Cited "see" Atlanta Recycled Fiber Co. v. Tri-Cities Steel Co. (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 117 Ga. App. 857, 858 ( 162 SE2d 304 ). 3.
cited Cited "see" Mabry v. Henley
Ga. Ct. App. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Woodward v. City Council of Augusta, 117 Ga. App. 857 (1), supra; State Hwy.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Platt v. National General Insurance (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: compare · confidence low
Co. v. Rhee, 160 Ga. App. 468, 472 (10) ( 287 SE2d 257 ); compare Woodward v. City Council &c., 117 Ga. App. 857 ( 162 SE2d 304 )), when a foundation is established for the use of the documents for purposes of past recollection recorded, both the testimony of the witness as to the relevant facts contained in the document (Cooper v. State, 174 Ga. App. 464, 466 (3) ( 330 SE2d 402 ); Mabry v. Henley, 123 Ga. App. 561, 566 (1c) ( 181 SE2d 884 ); Bridges v. Mutual &c.
WOODWARD Et Al., Executors
v.
CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA
43659.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jun 10, 1968.
162 S.E.2d 304
Franklin H. Pierce, for appellants., Henry J. Heffeman, for appellee.
Deen, Jordan, Pannell.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Deen, Judge.

“A witness may refresh and assist his memory by the use of any written instrument or memorandum, provided he finally shall speak from his recollection thus refreshed, or shall be willing to swear positively from the paper.” Code § 38-1707. This definitely allows oral testimony by a witness which the witness, absent the memorandum, would not be able otherwise to recollect. Does it also form a basis for allowing the written memorandum on which the oral testimony is based to be introduced in evidence? Excluding such memoranda as are admissible by reason of coming under the Business Records Act or because they are part of the res gestae (Davis v. State, 91 Ga. 167 (1) (17 SE 292)), it is generally held that the memorandum has no present evidentiary value, since “it is not the memorandum that is the evidence, but the recollection of the witness.” Stansall v. Columbian Nat. Life Ins. Co., 32 Ga. App. 87, 91 (122 SE 733). An exception is noted where the opposite side wishes to introduce the memorandum in order to weaken the effect of the testimony. In Ingram v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co., 108 Ga. 194 (3) (33 SE 961), a memorandum of a conversation between the witness and another was held in[*858] admissible for any purpose. In Southern B. Co. v. Cowan, 52 Ga. App. 360, 368 (6) (183 SE 331) a memorandum not authenticated under the shopbook rule was held inadmissible. See also Schall v. Eisner, 58 Ga. 190 (2); Draffin v. Massey, 93 Ga. App. 329 (2) (92 SE2d 38); Mallette v. Mallette, 220 Ga. 401 (139 SE2d 322).

Submitted May 8,1968 Decided June 10, 1968. Franklin H. Pierce, for appellants. Henry J. Heffeman, for appellee.

In the present case the witness estimated the value of the property condemned based on reconstruction cost new. He had prepared a cost breakdown which he gave verbatim and without objection, apparently referring to the document for that purpose. The document was then offered in evidence and excluded over objection. The ruling was without error. The best evidence of the expert witness’ opinion of. the cost of reconstruction was his own testimony to that effect, not the worksheet which he had prepared in order to assist him in presenting the testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.