Bolar v. Williams

• Decision Date: 22 May 1883
• Citation: 15 N.W. 716,14 Neb. 386
• Parties: ARCHIBALD BOLAR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FREDERICK WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

15 N.W. 716

14 Neb. 386

ARCHIBALD BOLAR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. FREDERICK WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Supreme Court of Nebraska

May 22, 1883

ERROR to the district court for Lancaster county.

AFFIRMED.

L. C Burr, for plaintiff in error.

Brown & Ryan Bros., for defendant in error.

OPINION

MAXWELL, J.

This is an action to recover the value of a colt belonging to the plaintiff, which it is alleged in the petition was injured by the defendant so severely as to cause its death. The answer is a general denial. On the trial of the cause a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant, and the action dismissed.

The principal objection in this court is that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The plaintiff and defendant are farmers residing about three-fourths of a mile from each other, near Crounse, in Lancaster county. In January, 1881 the colt in controversy was between nine and ten months old and seems to have been permitted to run at large. The injury was alleged to have been committed on the forenoon of the 23d of January, 1881. At about 8 or 9 o'clock on the morning of that day Anthony Rump, who resides but a few rods from the defendant's residence, found the colt in question in his stable. In his testimony he states: "It was lying down; I had two colts in there. It was lying across the halter rope of one of my colts. I unloosed the halter, and it then ran out."

On the cross-examination he testified: "I went to the stable and found this colt there, not in the position a horse ought to be." He also testifies that the colt went from his place to the defendant's. It also appears that he was the owner of a ferocious dog, and that when the colt was turned out of the witness's stable the dog pursued it to the residence of the defendant. Between 9 and 10 o'clock in the forenoon of the same day that Rump had turned the colt out of his stable the defendant went to the residence of the plaintiff and informed him that his colt had been badly injured. The injuries were found to be three or four deep gashes on the left shoulder, of which the colt died on or about the 25th of that month. The only ground of suspicion against the defendant is that he had threatened to shoot the plaintiff's stock if he did not keep it at home, and the fact that the injured animal was found on the defendant's premises. The defendant admits making the threats complained of, but states that they were made under great provocation, and without any intention of carrying the same into...