Carlton v. King
| Decision Date | 06 February 1906 |
| Citation | 51 Fla. 158,40 So. 191 |
| Parties | CARLTON v. KING. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Error to Circuit Court, De Soto County; Joseph B. Wall Judge.
Action by Elam B. Carlton against Thomas B. King. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Rulings of the trial court excluding a letter and a telegram offered in evidence by the plaintiff will not be disturbed on writ of error, where the letter and telegram are not shown to be relevant, particularly when matters stated in them were without objection testified to by the plaintiff and not contradicted.
Where there is evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury approved by the trial court, and nothing appears in the record to show bias of the jury or abuse of a sound judicial discretion of the court, the verdict will not be disturbed on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence and is the result of bias.
COUNSEL J. W. Brady, for plaintiff in error.
Treadwell & Treadwell, for defendant in error.
An action of assumpsit was brought in the circuit court for De Soto county by Elam B. Carlton against Thomas B. King, who pleaded never was indebted. At the trial the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant. After overruling a motion for new trial made by the plaintiff, the court entered a judgment for the defendant. Upon writ of error here the only assignment of error argued is the overruling of the motion for new trial.
It is contended that a letter from a third person to the plaintiff and a telegram from the plaintiff to the third person, which were offered in evidence by the plaintiff and excluded by the court, were a part of the res gestae and were erroneously excluded. The letter and telegram were not shown to be connected with the defendant, but matters stated therein were without objection testified to by the plaintiff and not contradicted. Therefore, even if they were improperly excluded, no harm resulted to the plaintiff.
It is also contended that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and is the result of bias. The evidence of the plaintiff was in many material particulars contradicted by the defendant and much of the evidence of the other witnesses tended to corroborate the defendant. This being so, and there being evidence to sustain the verdict, which was approved by the trial court, and as nothing appears in the record to show bias of the jury or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... jury manifestly wrong, except in those very rare cases where ... the evidence shows it to be so most convincingly and ... indubitably. King v. Rowan, 82 Miss. 18. See, also, ... Rhymes v. Electric Ry. Co., 85 Miss. 147; A. & ... V. Ry. Co. v. Dear, 87 Miss. 339; Carlton v ... ...
-
Holstun v. Embry
...is nothing to show bias or abuse of discretion, and there is evidence to sustain the verdict, it will not be disturbed. Carlton v. King, 51 Fla. 158, 40 So. 191. It must be so plainly against the evidence as to lead to conclusion that it was the result of prejudice, McSwain v. Howell, 29 Fl......
- Bowden v. Jacksonville Elec. Co.
-
Melbourne v. State
... ... the evidence, else it is not error to refuse the application ... Shook v. Thomas, 21 Ill. 87; Birks v ... Houston, 63 Ill. 77; Wilson v. King, 83 Ill ... 232; Gay v. Kendig, 2 Rob. (La.) 472; Eames v ... Hennessy, 22 Ill. 628; Carr v. Marshall, 1 Bibb ... (Ky.) [51 Fla. 72] 362; People ... ...