Blackmon v. Kirven, No. 13660.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSTABLER, Justice
Citation170 S.E. 157
PartiesBLACKMON. v. KIRVEN.
Decision Date07 July 1933
Docket NumberNo. 13660.

170 S.E. 157

BLACKMON.
v.
KIRVEN.

No. 13660.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 7, 1933.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Darlington County; W. H. Townsend, Judge.

Action by Idella Blackmon, by her guardian, ad litem, J. Oscar Blackmon, against John K. Kirven. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed. '

D. Carl Cook, of Hartsville, for appellant

L. M. Lawson, of Darlington, and D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for respondent.

STABLER, Justice.

This is an action for damages arising out of an alleged assault; the delict charged being stated in the complaint as follows: "That on the 29th day of September, 1930, while the plaintiff, Idella Blackmon, was at her home in the country, and alone, the defendant, John K. Kirven, without any previous knowledge on her part of his presence, willfully, wantonly, and maliciously approached the plaintiff, caught her in his arms and rudely and unlawfully assaulted her without her consent and against her will and protest, drew her to him and undertook indecent liberties with her person, notwithstanding her efforts to escape, with the evident purpose, as plaintiff verily believes, of having improper relations with her. While defendant was so engaged, the father of plaintiff came upon the scene and prevented the further prosecution by the defendant of his unlawful and wicked designs."

The defendant interposed a general denial, and sought dismissal of the complaint. The trial of the case, at the November, 1932, term of court of common pleas for Darlington county, resulted in a verdict of $5,000 for the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial, made on grounds renewed here by exceptions, was refused.

The appeal presents two questions: (1) Is the verdict excessive? (2) Did the trial judge commit error in charging the jury as to the measure of punitive damages?

[1, 21 The first question must be answered in the negative. In Steele v. Railway Company, 103 S. C. 102, 87 S. E, 639, 644, the court said: "Under the Constitution and statutes, the discretion to control juries in respect to the amount of their verdicts in actions for damages is vested in the trial judges, who, it must be presumed, recognize and appreciate their responsibility, and exercise the discretion vested in them with fairness and impartiality. This court has no jurisdiction to review matters of fact in an action at law; and, therefore, unless a verdict is wholly unsupported by evidence, or is so excessive as to justify the inference that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...on November 3, 1932. The judgment which was entered on this verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court on July 7, 1933. 170 S.C. 190, 170 S.E. 157. Execution was issued, on which the sheriff made a nulla bona return, whereupon an order for supplemental examination was made on July 29, 1933, ......
  • Blackmon v. Kirven, No. 13903.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 7, 1934
    ...guardian ad litem, J. Oscar Blackmon, against John K. Kirven. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court (170 S. C. 190, 170 S. E. 157), and proceedings were instituted to obtain execution on the judgment. From an order of the circuit court requiring the sheriff to arrest th......
  • Parks v. Blue Ridge Lumber Co, No. 13666.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 13, 1933
    ...notice of his intention to appeal upon the adverse party or his attorney and which it is admitted was not done in this case. It is: [170 S.E. 157] "Ordered that the motion be granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. "Jan. 17, 1933. "G. Dewey Oxner, "Judge 13th Circuit." For the reasons ......
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 13898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 3, 1934
    ...From a judgment overruling defendant Emmie B. Kirven's demurrer to the complaint, she appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 170 S. C. 190, 170 S. E. 157. Samuel Want and Melvin Hyman, both of Darlington, for appellant. L. M. Lawson, of Darlington, and D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for respondent. W.......
4 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...on November 3, 1932. The judgment which was entered on this verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court on July 7, 1933. 170 S.C. 190, 170 S.E. 157. Execution was issued, on which the sheriff made a nulla bona return, whereupon an order for supplemental examination was made on July 29, 1933, ......
  • Blackmon v. Kirven, No. 13903.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 7, 1934
    ...guardian ad litem, J. Oscar Blackmon, against John K. Kirven. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court (170 S. C. 190, 170 S. E. 157), and proceedings were instituted to obtain execution on the judgment. From an order of the circuit court requiring the sheriff to arrest th......
  • Parks v. Blue Ridge Lumber Co, No. 13666.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 13, 1933
    ...notice of his intention to appeal upon the adverse party or his attorney and which it is admitted was not done in this case. It is: [170 S.E. 157] "Ordered that the motion be granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. "Jan. 17, 1933. "G. Dewey Oxner, "Judge 13th Circuit." For the reasons ......
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 13898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 3, 1934
    ...From a judgment overruling defendant Emmie B. Kirven's demurrer to the complaint, she appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 170 S. C. 190, 170 S. E. 157. Samuel Want and Melvin Hyman, both of Darlington, for appellant. L. M. Lawson, of Darlington, and D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for respondent. W.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT