Beauchamp v. Pike County

• Decision Date: 28 June 1913
• Citation: 158 S.W. 321
• Parties: BEAUCHAMP v. PIKE COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

158 S.W. 321

BEAUCHAMP v. PIKE COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 28, 1913.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1002) — VERDICT — CONFLICTING EVIDENCE — CONCLUSIVENESS.

A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be reviewed.

2. COUNTIES (§ 73) — COUNTY SURVEYOR — EXPENSES.

A county surveyor is not entitled to reimbursement for the expenses of a telephone incurred for his private business or the convenience of his family and neighbors.

3. BOUNDARIES (§ 54) — RECORD OF SURVEY.

The book of the record of surveys is required by law to be deposited in the recorder's office and subject to public inspection.

4. TRIAL (§ 260) — INSTRUCTIONS — REQUEST.

Requested instructions which merely repeated other instructions given by the court at the request of the same party were properly refused.

Woodson, P. J., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.

Action by J. D. Beauchamp against Pike County. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff is the county surveyor of Pike county, and was serving his third term when he brought this suit against the county for the reasonable value of the use of one of the rooms of his house as a public office for 8 years 4 months, alleged to be $505, for the installation of a telephone at said residence 2 years and 2 months, $28, and for special telephone message $1.30. The answer was a general denial and the plea of the statutes of limitations for five years as to the indebtedness existing beyond that period, before suit.

Plaintiff, whose business is that of dairyman and milk dealer, stated that he used one of the rooms of his residence, about one-half mile from town, for his office as county surveyor, that persons who had official business with him called and were received there; that the room in question was also used by himself and family as the sitting and receiving room for themselves and social callers, that he caused a telephone to be placed in said room, for which he paid the rate charged in residences, and which was used for official purposes and also for the convenience of himself, his family, and other persons; that he had so located his office because the county court had failed at his request to provide him suitable office and furnishings; that the reasonable rental value of the room in his residence was $5 per month, amounting to the sum claimed therefor in his petition; and he testified to the same effect concerning the items claimed for telephone service, and to the last item of special messages he claimed to have spent 45 cents.

For the defendant, Mr. Robertson, member of the county court, testified that plaintiff never mentioned to him any bill for office rent, and never at any time demanded any room wherein to keep his office, and the court never provided for him in that respect. This witness was a member of the county court during the whole time embraced in plaintiff's claims.

Mr. Cune, who had been presiding judge of the county court for three years, testified that the plaintiff made no demand for rent of office during his incumbency. He further testified to wit: "Q. State if you were willing at any time to furnish an office for him, if he wanted it? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the courthouse? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he ever make any demand on you, or any member of the county, as far as you know, to furnish him an office? A. No, sir. This witness further stated that their were two rooms in the courthouse available for that purpose.

Defendant had judgment and plaintiff appealed.

Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, for appellant. T. B. McGinnis and W. O. Gray, both of Bowling Green, for respondent.

BOND, J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. The court instructed the jury that it was the duty of the county court to provide an office room for the use of plaintiff as county surveyor without any request on his part, and that in case of his failure to do so, plaintiff could recover the reasonable value of the use of one of the rooms of his residence as an office. And that a telephone was a necessary equipment of such an office, and that the expense of installing the same could be recovered by the plaintiff (upon failure of the county court to provide the same) if the jury believed the plaintiff had installed this instrument in the room of his residence where his office was kept for the discharge of his official duties.

The testimony in this case clearly presented an alternative view of what is expressed by the foregoing instructions. Upon that conflicting evidence the jury found for the defendant, and hence conversely to the theory of the plaintiff's instructions. Necessarily that verdict leaves nothing for review. The instructions given for plainti...