Boone v. Holder

Citation112 S.W. 1081,87 Ark. 461
PartiesBOONE v. HOLDER
Decision Date05 October 1908
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

Appeal from Logan Circuit Court; Southern District; Jeptha H. Evans Judge; reversed.

Carmichael Brooks & Powers, for appellant.

The argument of counsel was improper and prejudicial, for which the judgment should be reversed. 61 Ark. 143; 65 id. 481; 80 id. 161.

HART J. HILL, C. J.

OPINION

HART, J.

B. E Boone brought this suit against Albert Holder for alienation of the affections of his wife, Alice Boone. There was a jury trial, and a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.

It is unnecessary to abstract the testimony, except to state that it was sufficient to sustain the allegations of the complaint.

No objections were made to the instructions of the court. The sole ground relied upon for reversal is on account of alleged improper argument of counsel. In his motion for a new trial the plaintiff, Boone, states that R. J. White, counsel for the defendant, was, over his objections, permitted to argue to the jury "that if the mouth of the plaintiff's wife was not closed by the iron laws she would swear that Holder, the defendant, never had sexual intercourse with her; that her husband, the plaintiff, had mistreated her; that he had neglected her and had been too intimate with one of the witnesses for the plaintiff--Doshy Holder." The presiding judge refused to sign the bill of exceptions prepared in accordance with the language set forth in the motion for a new trial as above stated, but corrected it so as to read as follows:

"Gentlemen, in stating this cause to you I told you that I would prove that the plaintiff was tired of his wife, now that she is old and ugly; that he had mistreated her and was enamored of a younger and fairer woman--Doshy Holder--one of the witnesses in this case, and that all the suspicious circumstances that the witnesses for the plaintiff would bring into the case would be fully explained to your entire satisfaction, and that, too, consistent with the innocence of the plaintiff's wife of the foul charge of adultery which he makes against her. I have done the best I could to make my statement good in the proof, both by the testimony of witnesses directly given and by dragging out what of the truth I could by the cross examination of unfriendly witnesses. If I have failed in any particular to make the proof as strong as I stated it, you must remember, gentlemen, that I was unable to obtain the testimony of the plaintiff's wife in this cause. She is excluded by an iron rule of law, which the court announced. I do not complain at the court or the law. But you must remember that she sits here in this court an anxious onlooker while the question of her virtue is being debated and bandied about, the most interested person connected with this case; and must sit dumb in the presence of these base accusations against her and her character, which she holds dearer than life. The interest of the plaintiff and of the defendant, however great, is insignificant in comparison with hers.

"What she might say if she were permitted to testify is only a matter of conjecture. I want you to weigh the testimony in the cause carefully, and remember that the reputation of a good woman, of a mother, is at stake, and that the law does not permit her to give her testimony either by way of denial or explanation, but must sit in silence and listen to her defamers in this temple of justice."

The plaintiff, not being satisfied with the correction made by the judge, procured the bill as originally prepared by him and as set forth in his motion for a new trial to be certified by two bystanders in the manner and form provided by the statutes. No controverting affidavits were filed by the defendant.

This court has held in the case of Smith v. Staten [*] that a bill of exceptions as certified by the bystanders in accordance with the statute, in the absence of controverting affidavits, must be taken as representing the true state of the record. The case for some reason was omitted from our printed reports, but the correctness of the decision has never been questioned, and is. now the settled law in this State. The case is reported in: 16 S.W. 2.

In construing a similar statute, the courts of the State of Kentucky and of Missouri have held that the paper so filed will be treated as containing the correct version of the proceedings unless its truth be controverted by affidavit filed by the opposite side. Norton v. Dorsey, 65 Mo. 376; Koelin v. Rufenact, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 736. Therefore, as far as this court is concerned, the record stands as if the defendant's attorney had stated to the jury that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • F. Kiech Manufacturing Company v. Hopkins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 16 Junio 1913
    ...failed to rule on appellant's objections, and failed to admonish the jury that it was improper. 65 Ark. 635; 61 Ark. 136; 95 Ark. 233; 87 Ark. 461; 89 Ark. 58; 81 Ark. 31; 71 Ark. 415; 75 Ark. 577. Lamb & Caraway, for appellee. 1. The evidence sustains the verdict. 2. There was no error in ......
  • Davis v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 11 Julio 1910
    ...Ark. 625; 75 Ark. 577; 72 Ark. 468; 63 Ark. 174; 74 Ark. 210; 72 Ark. 139; 76 Ark. 276; 65 Ark. 389; 7 Ark. 179; 76 Ark. 370; 89 Ark. 58; 87 Ark. 461; 87 Ark. 515; 81 Ark. 25; 81 Ark. 231; 80 23. Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and W. H. Rector, Assistant, for appellee. The indictment was......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Aiken
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 10 Julio 1911
    ...Ark. 388; 93 Ark. 187; 45 A. 593; 55 N.E. 861; 115 Ill. 300; 39 Ill.App. 388; 71 Ark. 427; 89 Ark. 87; 70 Ark. 305; Id. 179; 63 Ark. 174; 87 Ark. 461; 30 N.W. Jeff Davis and Frank Pace, for appellee. There was no error in the court exercising control over the examination of talesman R. T. P......
  • Dardanelle Pontoon Bridge & Turnpike Company v. Croom
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 30 Mayo 1910
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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