Hackman v. Maguire

• Decision Date: 05 January 1886
• Parties: J. F. HACKMAN ET AL., Respondents, v. JOHN MAGUIRE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

20 Mo.App. 286

J. F. HACKMAN ET AL., Respondents,

v.JOHN MAGUIRE, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jan. 5, 1886.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge.

Affirmed.

C. P. & J. D. JOHNSON, for the appellant.

L. L. SEWARD, for the respondents.

THOMPSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition states that the defendant owes the plaintiffs $322.53 for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant, according to an itemized account filed with the petition. The answer is a general denial.

I. After the plaintiffs' counsel had made their opening statement to the jury and called a witness, the defendant's counsel objected to the introduction of any evidence until the pleadings had been read. The court overruled the objection, remarking at the same time that the defendant's counsel might read them if he desired. The trial then proceeded without the pleadings having been read to the jury, and this is the first error complained of. We think the point is not well taken. This, like many other matters relating to the conduct of a trial, rests in the sound discretion of the court, and, on well settled grounds, the exercise of this discretion is not subject to review, on appeal, unless it plainly appear that it has been abused. For aught that we can see, the issue may have been properly stated by the plaintiffs' counsel to the jury, and if so, the reading of the pleadings may not have been necessary. Clearly, no abuse of discretion is exhibited in this respect. Willis v. Forrest, 2 Duer 310; Drew v. Andrews, 8 Hun 23.

II. According to the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs gave evidence tending to show “that the defendant, John Maguire, was one of two trustees under the will of George R. Taylor, deceased; and as such owned certain hotel property in the city of St. Louis, known as Barnum's Hotel. That prior to the first day of March, 1883, Messrs. Cobb and Dean were the lessees of said property, and conducted a hotel therein under the name of Barnum's Hotel.” That there were numerous boarders and guests in the house; that said Cobb and Dean abandoned the hotel and left the city, occasioning much confusion among the boarders and guests of the hotel. That many of the boarders and guests left, but a large portion remained. That on or about the second day of April, 1883, the defendant, as trustee, put the said Trumpbour in charge of said hotel as manager, for the purpose of carrying on the same until other arrangements could be made; that thereafter, until about the first day of February, 1884, the said Trumpbour managed and carried on said hotel under the name of “Barnum's Hotel.” That from time to time during that period the plaintiffs sold and delivered to and at said hotel, under the name of Barnum's Hotel, supplies of different kinds. That prior to the first day of December, 1883, plaintiffs were paid by the said Trumpbour for all supplies delivered during the current month, at the first of the succeeding month. That prior to the first day of January, 1884, the plaintiffs did not know that the said Trumpbour was managing said hotel as the agent of the defendant. That said Trumpbour being unable to pay to the plaintiffs a bill of supplies furnished during the month of December, 1883, said Trumpbour informed him for the first time that he was managing the said hotel as the agent of the defendant. That the debt sued for was for supplies furnished to the said hotel between the first day of December, 1883, and the thirty-first day of January, 1884, and that they amounted to $322.53, and plaintiffs had not been paid therefor. That said property had been used as a hotel, under the name of “Barnum's Hotel” for upwards of twenty years, and...