Barton v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 05 October 1881
• Citation: 9 N.W. 899,56 Iowa 571
• Parties: BARTON v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

56 Iowa 571

9 N.W. 899

BARTON

v.THOMPSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 5, 1881.

Appeal from Mitchell circuit court.

This is an action to recover damages for the alleged wilfully and maliciously setting fire to and causing to be burned certain stacks of wheat of the plaintiff. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. This is the same case that was before the court upon a former appeal. See 46 Iowa, 30.D. W. Poindexter and Starr & Harrison, for appellant.

C. D. Ellis and L. M. Ryce, for appellee.

DAY, J.

1. The court instructed the jury, in substance, that evidence of the defendant's prior good character was to be weighed and considered by them, and if therefrom a reasonable doubt was raised, it was their duty to find for the defendant. In civil cases evidence of general character is not admitted unless the nature of the action involves the general character of the party or goes directly to affect it. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 54, and authorities cited in note 3. But “generally, in actions of tort, where the defendant is charged with fraud from mere circumstances, evidence of his general good character is admissible to repel it.” Id. The better doctrine seems to be that evidence of good character should be confined to cases where intention is the point in issue, and the proof consists of slight circumstances. This is the rule which was established in the leading case of Ryan v. Perry, 3 Caines, 120. Beyond the rule recognized in this case, the best-considered cases have not extended the admissibility of evidence of good character in a civil action. That such evidence is not entitled to consideration in a case such as this is clearly established by the following authorities: Fowler v. Ætna Fire Ins. Co. 6 Cowan, 673; Schmidt v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 1 Gray, 535;Atty. Gen. v. Bowman, 2 Bos. & Pul. 532; Humphrey v. Humphrey, 7 Conn. 116. The court erred in giving the instruction under consideration.

2. Upon the trial of this case the court instructed, in harmony with the rule adopted upon the former appeal, that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff, in order to a recovery, to prove the facts alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the trial of this case in the court below, the case of Barton v. Thompson, 46 Iowa, 30, has been overruled. See Welch v. Jugenheimer, 8 N. W. REP. 673. It is the established doctrine of the courts that a decision once made in a case constitutes the law of the...