Barrineau v. Charleston Consol. Ry., Gas & Electric Co.

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GARY, A. J.
• Citation: Barrineau v. Charleston Consol. Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 61 S.E. 1063, 81 S.C. 20 (S.C. 1908)
• Decision Date: 23 July 1908
• Parties: BARRINEAU v. CHARLESTON CONSOL. RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

61 S.E. 1063

81 S.C. 20

BARRINEAU v. CHARLESTON CONSOL. RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 23, 1908

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Geo. W Gage, Judge.

Action by William R. Barrineau, by his guardian ad litem, against the Charleston Consolidated Railway, Gas & Electric Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mordecai & Gadsden and Rutledge & Hagood, for appellant.

Logan & Grace, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This is an action for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while mounted on a wagon, which was being driven along one of the streets in Charleston, through the negligence and recklessness of the defendant in backing one of its cars against the wagon, thereby injuring the plaintiff. The defendant admitted its negligence, and that the only issue was as to the amount of the damages. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $700, and the defendant appealed upon the following exceptions: "Because the presiding judge erred in sustaining the objection of plaintiff's counsel to the following question asked the witness W. R. Barrineau: 'Q. Hasn't he got a book, as you call it, now?'-(a) the error assigned being that said question was competent, in view of the explanation, given by counsel to the court, as to the meaning of said question, 'Hasn't he got a book?' as tending to show that subsequent to the injury of plaintiff, and at the time of trial, the plaintiff was able to engage in, and was engaged in an occupation which earned for him a livelihood, and was, furthermore, in contradiction to the direct testimony of this witness; (b) the further error assigned being that, in view of the explanation made by counsel to the court of what the expression 'Hasn't he got a book?' meant, this testimony was competent, as showing plaintiff's employment at the time and before the time, of the trial, and subsequent to the injury alleged. (2) Because the court erred in refusing to allow defendant's witness W. B. Gruber to testify as to the plaintiff's occupation at the time, and preceding the time, of trial, and subsequent to the injury alleged; the error assigned being that such testimony tended to show, and would have shown, that the plaintiff was able to work, was engaged in an occupation, from which he earned a livelihood and, in addition to the contradiction of the testimony of the...