Hart v. Hicks

• Decision Date: 04 June 1895
• Citation: 31 S.W. 351,129 Mo. 99
• Parties: HART et al. v. HICKS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

31 S.W. 351

129 Mo. 99

HART et al. v. HICKS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 4, 1895.

CONSPIRACY — EVIDENCE — TRESPASS ON LEASED PREMISES — ACTION BY HUSBAND.

1. In an action for an alleged conspiracy between defendant and another, evidence as to acts of the other is inadmissible, in the absence of any evidence to show a conspiracy.

2. Where a husband and wife occupy premises as tenants, the husband sometimes paying the rent, and sometimes the wife, the husband, as the head of the family, and not the wife, is the proper party plaintiff in an action against the landlord for trespass on the premises.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. H. Slover, Judge.

Action by Mary J. Hart and another against Charles R. Hicks for damages resulting from a conspiracy to drive plaintiff from a building she occupied as tenant to defendant. From a judgment of nonsuit, and an order denying a motion to set the same aside, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

N. F. Heitman, for appellants. Kinley & Kinley, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

The plaintiff Mary J. Hart, her husband, O. Y. Hart, joining with her, prosecutes this action against the defendant, who had previously been her landlord, for damages in combining with other tenants of defendant, to wit, Mrs. Emma Conway and family, and one John Rogers, who occupied the first floor and basement of the same building, while plaintiffs occupied the second floor, to drive the plaintiffs and their family out of said building. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by plaintiffs, the defendant interposed a demurrer thereto, which was sustained. Plaintiffs then took a nonsuit, with leave to move to set the same aside; and, the motion being overruled, they appealed. The petition alleges that on the 21st day of November, 1892, while plaintiffs and family were absent from home, in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into by defendant, said Conway and Rogers, the entrance door to the building occupied by plaintiffs was closed by said Rogers and Conway, and that they maliciously and unlawfully refused to open said door when the plaintiff Mary and her daughter returned to said house for the purpose of going to the part occupied by them, so that she was compelled to seek shelter elsewhere until an hour after dark that night, when they and their family were enabled to get in; that on the next day, in pursuance of said conspiracy to drive plaintiffs and their family from said house, the defendant unlawfully broke into and took possession of this said house, and then and there forced and broke open and from its hinges and carried away the door leading from the stairway of said premises into said second floor, and tore down the partition at the head of said stairway which separated said second floor from the balance of said house, and protected it from the cold coming in from the outside door, thereby rendering the part of the house occupied by plaintiffs unfit for occupation. The petition then alleges that, in pursuance of said conspiracy, defendant, on the 24th day of November, 1892, procured and caused the entrance door to said building to be opened in the nighttime, and left open, so that the cold air from the outside was let into their apartments, by reason of which plaintiffs and their children were taken sick, suffered great pain, and incurred heavy expenses for nursing and medical attention; that on the 25th day of November, 1892, in furtherance of said conspiracy, and in the absence of the husband of said Mary, one D. L. Elder was sent to the house for the purpose of terrorizing and frightening the said Mary, and did threaten to arrest her, thereby greatly frightening and terrorizing her and her daughter; that, again, on the 26th day of November, 1892, one J. Cunningham, in pursuance of the direction of defendant, intruded himself into plaintiffs' home, and demanded that he should be permitted to go into the bath room, on said second floor, which was part of the premises rented by plaintiffs, and, by threatening to break the door open if it was not opened, compelled her to open the same, and told her that, if the door was not left open, she would be arrested, at the same time displaying an officer's star. The damages are laid at $5,000, for which judgment is asked. The answer admits that plaintiffs are husband and wife, and denies all other allegations,...