Beckman v. Souther
| Decision Date | 13 March 1896 |
| Citation | 68 N.H. 381,36 A. 14 |
| Parties | BECKMAN v. SOUTHER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Hiram Beckman sued Leonidas Souther in trespass for assault and false imprisonment. Plea, the general issue, with a brief statement that the defendant arrested and detained the plaintiff under legal process. Verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's counsel, in opening the case to the jury, stated that he claimed and proposed to show that the defendant, in making the arrest, used unnecessary and excessive violence. Evidence of the plaintiff's character and reputation as a dangerous person, to the knowledge of the defendant, was admitted; and evidence tending to show that the defendant was a violent man, and on a former occasion had used unnecessary force and violence in arresting another person, was excluded, subject to the plaintiff's exception. The defendant testified, without objection, that he was a constable, and produced and put in evidence the writ upon which the arrest was made, with his return of the arrest thereon, signed by him as constable. The court declined to instinct the jury that there was no evidence that the defendant was a constable, and the plaintiff excepted. Overruled.
J. W. Towle, for plaintiff.
S. H. Goodall and E. L. Guptil, for defendant.
CARPENTER, J. Evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was known by the defendant to be a violent and dangerous person was competent. In arresting and detaining such a person forcible measures might be proper and reasonable, which in the case of a person of a different character, would be unwarranted. Whether the evidence offered of the defendant's character for violence and of his conduct in making a previous arrest had any legitimate bearing on the Issue submitted to the jury, was a question of remoteness determinable at the trial term. Its exclusion was not error. Cook v. New Durham, 64 N. H. 419, 13 Atl. 650; Hilliard v. Beattie, 59 N. H. 462, 465. The instructions requested were properly refused. Jewell v. Gilbert, 64 N. H. 13, 5 Atl. 80. Exceptions overruled.
PARSONS, J., did not sit. The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cain v. Skillin
... ... plaintiff's reputation is not mentioned as being ... necessary. In a New Hampshire case (Beckman v ... Souther, 68 N.H. 381, 36 A. 14) and a New York case ( ... Silliman v. Sampson, 42 A.D. 623, 59 N.Y.S. 923) and ... also an Arkansas case ... ...
-
Davenport v. Silvey
... ... reputation of the opposite party to be quarrelsome or ... otherwise. Golder v. Lund, 50 Neb. 867; Beckman ... v. Souther, 68 N.H. 381; Silliman v. Sampson, ... 59 N.Y.S. 923; Knight v. Smythe, 57 Vt. 529; ... Harrison v. Harrison, 43 Vt. 417; Keep v ... ...
-
Davenport v. Silvey
...the plaintiff's general reputation, and not by the opinion of witnesses as to his general character." To like effect are Beckman v. Souther, 68 N. H. 381, 36 Atl. 14; Silliman v. Sampson, 59 N. Y. Supp. 923; Harrison v. Harrison, 43 Vt. 417; Keep v. Quallman, 68 Wis. 451, 32 N. W. 233; Spai......
-
Lawrence v. Farwell
...the issue submitted to the jury, was a question of remoteness determinable at the trial term. Its exclusion was not error." Beckman v. Souther, 68 N. H. 381, 36 A. 14; Bunten v. Davis, 82 N. H. 304, 309, 310, 133 A. 16, 45 A. L. R. 9. With reference to the question of a new promise, the cou......