ruling is assigned error in Oregon

1965The question turns upon the applicability of Oregon’s Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, ORS 41.680 and 41.690, which read: 41.680 “The term ‘business,’ as used in ORS 41.690, shall include every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling or operating of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not.” 41.690 “A record of an act, condition or event, shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of

1965The question turns upon the applicability of Oregon’s Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, ORS 41.680 and 41.690, which read: 41.680 “The term ‘business,’ as used in ORS 41.690, shall include every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling or operating of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not.” 41.690 “A record of an act, condition or event, shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of

1965“Provisions in any of them concerning responsibility for loss, methods of operations and precautions to be taken are thus matters entitled to receive your consideration in determining whether the Defendants or any thereof have been guilty of negligence toward the Plaintiff in the particulars charged in the Amended Complaint.” *50 The court refused to give the instruction and the ruling is assigned as error. ⑦ The question whether in a tort action the agreement of one of the parties to a contract to take specific precautions for the protection of person or property is relevant, was considered b

1965“Provisions in any of them concerning responsibility for loss, methods of operations and precautions to be taken are thus matters entitled to receive your consideration in determining whether the Defendants or any thereof have been guilty of negligence toward the Plaintiff in the particulars charged in the Amended Complaint.” *50 The court refused to give the instruction and the ruling is assigned as error. ⑦ The question whether in a tort action the agreement of one of the parties to a contract to take specific precautions for the protection of person or property is relevant, was considered b

1965The question turns upon the applicability of Oregon’s Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, ORS 41.680 and 41.690, which read: 41.680 “The term ‘business,’ as used in ORS 41.690, shall include every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling or operating of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not.” 41.690 “A record of an act, condition or event, shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of

1965The question turns upon the applicability of Oregon’s Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, ORS 41.680 and 41.690, which read: 41.680 “The term ‘business,’ as used in ORS 41.690, shall include every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling or operating of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not.” 41.690 “A record of an act, condition or event, shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of

1964Generally, an action in deceit will lie only for false representations of matters of past or existing fact, and hence statements of opinion as, for example, expressions by a vendor commendatory of the thing which he is trying to sell are not actionable even though false: Sorenson et ux v. Gardner et ux, 215 Or 255, 258-259 , 334 P2d 471 (representation that a house was “well constructed in a workmanlike manner” — dictum); Smith v. Owen et al, 208 Or 154, 161 , 300 P2d 423 (dictum); Hansen v. Holmberg, 176 Or 173, 179 , 156 P2d 571 ; Horner v. Wagy, supra, 173 Or at 455 (where earlier Oregon ca

1964Generally, an action in deceit will lie only for false representations of matters of past or existing fact, and hence statements of opinion as, for example, expressions by a vendor commendatory of the thing which he is trying to sell are not actionable even though false: Sorenson et ux v. Gardner et ux, 215 Or 255, 258-259 , 334 P2d 471 (representation that a house was “well constructed in a workmanlike manner” — dictum); Smith v. Owen et al, 208 Or 154, 161 , 300 P2d 423 (dictum); Hansen v. Holmberg, 176 Or 173, 179 , 156 P2d 571 ; Horner v. Wagy, supra, 173 Or at 455 (where earlier Oregon ca

1964Generally, an action in deceit will lie only for false representations of matters of past or existing fact, and hence statements of opinion as, for example, expressions by a vendor commendatory of the thing which he is trying to sell are not actionable even though false: Sorenson et ux v. Gardner et ux, 215 Or 255, 258-259 , 334 P2d 471 (representation that a house was “well constructed in a workmanlike manner” — dictum); Smith v. Owen et al, 208 Or 154, 161 , 300 P2d 423 (dictum); Hansen v. Holmberg, 176 Or 173, 179 , 156 P2d 571 ; Horner v. Wagy, supra, 173 Or at 455 (where earlier Oregon ca

1964Generally, an action in deceit will lie only for false representations of matters of past or existing fact, and hence statements of opinion as, for example, expressions by a vendor commendatory of the thing which he is trying to sell are not actionable even though false: Sorenson et ux v. Gardner et ux, 215 Or 255, 258-259 , 334 P2d 471 (representation that a house was “well constructed in a workmanlike manner” — dictum); Smith v. Owen et al, 208 Or 154, 161 , 300 P2d 423 (dictum); Hansen v. Holmberg, 176 Or 173, 179 , 156 P2d 571 ; Horner v. Wagy, supra, 173 Or at 455 (where earlier Oregon ca

1964We think that the evidence was properly admitted under one of the recognized exceptions to the general rule, to wit: “When a crime has been committed by the use of a novel means or in a particular manner, evidence of the defendant’s commission of similar offenses by the use of such means or in such manner is admissible against him, as tending to prove the identity of persons from the similarity of such means, or the peculiarity of the manner adopted by him.” State v. O’Donnell, 36 Or 222, 226 , 61 P 892 .

1964We think that the evidence was properly admitted under one of the recognized exceptions to the general rule, to wit: “When a crime has been committed by the use of a novel means or in a particular manner, evidence of the defendant’s commission of similar offenses by the use of such means or in such manner is admissible against him, as tending to prove the identity of persons from the similarity of such means, or the peculiarity of the manner adopted by him.” State v. O’Donnell, 36 Or 222, 226 , 61 P 892 .

1964Generally, an action in deceit will lie only for false representations of matters of past or existing fact, and hence statements of opinion as, for example, expressions by a vendor commendatory of the thing which he is trying to sell are not actionable even though false: Sorenson et ux v. Gardner et ux, 215 Or 255, 258-259 , 334 P2d 471 (representation that a house was “well constructed in a workmanlike manner” — dictum); Smith v. Owen et al, 208 Or 154, 161 , 300 P2d 423 (dictum); Hansen v. Holmberg, 176 Or 173, 179 , 156 P2d 571 ; Horner v. Wagy, supra, 173 Or at 455 (where earlier Oregon ca

1964Generally, an action in deceit will lie only for false representations of matters of past or existing fact, and hence statements of opinion as, for example, expressions by a vendor commendatory of the thing which he is trying to sell are not actionable even though false: Sorenson et ux v. Gardner et ux, 215 Or 255, 258-259 , 334 P2d 471 (representation that a house was “well constructed in a workmanlike manner” — dictum); Smith v. Owen et al, 208 Or 154, 161 , 300 P2d 423 (dictum); Hansen v. Holmberg, 176 Or 173, 179 , 156 P2d 571 ; Horner v. Wagy, supra, 173 Or at 455 (where earlier Oregon ca

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1951They cite four cases: Fair v. State, 168 Ga. 409 , 148 S. E. 144 ; Berry v. Commonwealth, 227 Ky. 528 , 13 S. W. 2d 521 ; State v. Johnson, 151 La. 625 , 92 So. 139 ; State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 So. 334 , 92 Am.

1936Section 13-926, Oregon Code 1930, provides: “When two or more persons are charged in the same indictment, and the court is of opinion that, in regard *431 to a particular defendant, there is not sufficient evidence to put him on his defense, it must, if requested by another defendant then on trial, order him to be discharged from the indictment, before the evidence is closed, that he may be a witness for his codefendant.” In State v. White, 48 Or. 416 ( 87 P. 137 ), it was held that a motion, under this section, to discharge a codefendant “was a matter, based upon the sufficiency of evidence,

1936Section 13-926, Oregon Code 1930, provides: “When two or more persons are charged in the same indictment, and the court is of opinion that, in regard *431 to a particular defendant, there is not sufficient evidence to put him on his defense, it must, if requested by another defendant then on trial, order him to be discharged from the indictment, before the evidence is closed, that he may be a witness for his codefendant.” In State v. White, 48 Or. 416 ( 87 P. 137 ), it was held that a motion, under this section, to discharge a codefendant “was a matter, based upon the sufficiency of evidence,

1927That this is proper cross-examination is abundantly established by State v. Ogden, 39 Or. 195 ( 65 Pac. 449 ); State v. Doris, *672 51 Or. 136, 160 ( 94 Pac. 44 , 16 L.

1927That this is proper cross-examination is abundantly established by State v. Ogden, 39 Or. 195 ( 65 Pac. 449 ); State v. Doris, *672 51 Or. 136, 160 ( 94 Pac. 44 , 16 L.

1914No exception was saved thereto, and the ruling is not necessarily considered: Chicago etc. Co. v. Linn, 30 Ind. App. 88 ( 65 N. E. 552 ); Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583 ( 83 N. W. 842 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Coos Bay Nav.

1914No exception was saved thereto, and the ruling is not necessarily considered: Chicago etc. Co. v. Linn, 30 Ind. App. 88 ( 65 N. E. 552 ); Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583 ( 83 N. W. 842 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Coos Bay Nav.

1914No exception was saved thereto, and the ruling is not necessarily considered: Chicago etc. Co. v. Linn, 30 Ind. App. 88 ( 65 N. E. 552 ); Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583 ( 83 N. W. 842 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Coos Bay Nav.

1914No exception was saved thereto, and the ruling is not necessarily considered: Chicago etc. Co. v. Linn, 30 Ind. App. 88 ( 65 N. E. 552 ); Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583 ( 83 N. W. 842 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Coos Bay Nav.

1914No exception was saved thereto, and the ruling is not necessarily considered: Chicago etc. Co. v. Linn, 30 Ind. App. 88 ( 65 N. E. 552 ); Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583 ( 83 N. W. 842 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Coos Bay Nav.

1914No exception was saved thereto, and the ruling is not necessarily considered: Chicago etc. Co. v. Linn, 30 Ind. App. 88 ( 65 N. E. 552 ); Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 60 Neb. 583 ( 83 N. W. 842 ); Kelley v. Highfield, 15 Or. 277 ( 14 Pac. 744 ); Coos Bay Nav.

1901If it be conceded that a railroad company is not liable for an injury caused by an excavation in a public highway made by a contractor in the construction of its road (but see McAllister v. City of Albany, 18 Or. 426 , 23 Pac. 845 ), there was no reversible error in denying the application.

1901If it be conceded that a railroad company is not liable for an injury caused by an excavation in a public highway made by a contractor in the construction of its road (but see McAllister v. City of Albany, 18 Or. 426 , 23 Pac. 845 ), there was no reversible error in denying the application.