Ball v. The Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 09 March 1888 |
| Citation | 37 N.W. 110,74 Iowa 132 |
| Parties | BALL v. THE KEOKUK & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Decided December, 1887
Appeal from Lee District Court.--HON. J. M. CASEY, Judge.
THE plaintiff is the owner of a farm of two hundred and twenty acres. The defendant constructed a railroad over said farm several years ago. The plaintiff instituted proceedings to have his damages assessed under the statute. A commission or sheriff's jury was impaneled, and the damages were fixed at three thousand dollars. The defendant appealed from the assessment, and a jury trial was had in the court below which resulted in a verdict of thirty-two hundred and fifty-nine dollars for the plaintiff. A new trial was awarded by this court, and another jury trial was had, and a verdict for thirty-six hundred and forty-eight dollars was returned for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
James H. Anderson and H. H. Trimble, for appellant.
D. N Sprague and Frank Hagerman, for appellee.
I.
The cause was reversed upon the first appeal because the evidence did not identify the different tracts of land composing the farm. We are now advised that the land claimed to be damaged by the railroad consists of an entire farm of two hundred and twenty acres, made up of several contiguous government subdivisions. The defendant's first complaint is that one of the plaintiff's counsel, in his opening statement to the jury, in giving a history of the case, stated that the sheriff's jury fixed the damages to the farm at three thousand dollars, and that thereupon counsel for the defendant, claiming that such statement was misconduct on the part of counsel, moved the court to discharge the jury. The motion was overruled. What occurred in reference to the matter does not appear to have been made of record except by a statement taken down by the short-hand reporter. It is doubtful if this statement was made a part of the bill of exceptions. If it were properly of record, we do not think the cause should be reversed for a refusal to discharge the jury. While a delicate sense of propriety ought probably to deter counsel from stating to a jury the result of a former trial of the case, we are not prepared to say that it is such misconduct as to demand anything more from the court than an admonition to the jury that a knowledge of the amount of a former verdict should have no influence upon them. This was done by the court at the time, and afterwards in the instructions given at the close of the trial.
II. It is urged that the court erred in admitting incompetent and improper testimony by two of plaintiff's witnesses, named Ball and Watson. It appears from appellant's abstract that these witnesses were permitted to give their estimate of the value of the farm before the road was built, and then to state that it was worth a certain number of dollars less per acre after the road was constructed. Whatever may be thought of this method of examining a witness, it appears that it could not have been prejudicial to the defendant, for the reason that both of the witnesses afterwards stated that the farm was worth a certain sum per acre after the railroad was built. This appears from an additional abstract filed by the appellee. This abstract is claimed by counsel for appellant to have been unnecessary and immaterial. But it is not denied. We make this reference to it now, so that it will be understood that when we refer to the record we mean the record as amended by appellee's abstract.
III. We come now to consider objections made to the testimony of a large number of the plaintiff's witnesses upon the question as to the damages to the farm by reason of the construction of the road. The uniform objection to all of the questions asked these witnesses as to the value of the farm before and...
To continue reading
Request your trial