Chamblee v. Stocks, 8666
| Decision Date | 15 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 8666,8666 |
| Citation | 9 Utah 2d 342,344 P.2d 980 |
| Parties | d 342 Walter Lee CHAMBLEE, through his guardian ad litem, Gertrude Elkins, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John STOCKS and Ray Tibbetts, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Dwight L. King, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Harry Snow, Moab, Frandsen & Keller, Price, for respondents.
Appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of no cause of action in a case where plaintiff sought damages against a sheriff and his deputy for an alleged pummelling administered to plaintiff incident to his arrest. Affirmed with costs to defendants.
Plaintiff urges error in 1) refusal to grant his motion for change of venue and 2) in failing to grant a new trial for variance in the testimony of the sheriff on deposition and at the trial.
As to 1): the motion for change of venue was filed and argued long before trial and was based on an affidavit which, in the words of plaintiff's brief, 'set forth * * * the fact that the defendant, John Stocks, was an elected official * * *, that he was a member of one of the oldest families in Moab and Grand County, had many friends in the county, and that because of his official position, relatives and friends * * * it would be impossible to have an impartial trial.' (Emphasis added.)
Change of venue generally is discretionary 1 and absent a clear abuse thereof a trial court's order denying or granting it will not be disturbed. With nothing more than facts reflected in the language quoted above, a trial court would not abuse its discretion, in our opinion, by denying the change. The wisdom of the court's denial here quite clearly was established when the jurors were questioned for cause shortly before they were sworn. At that time, although all knew or knew of the sheriff, and some were acquainted with him, none evinced any disposition to try the case other than fairly, on the evidence, and under instructions of the trial court,--except possibly two prospective jurors,--one of whom, although admitting embarrassment to act as venireman, acknowledged an ability to transcend it,--he being eliminated by plaintiff's peremptory challenge, and the other for cause on motion of defendant. It would not be consonant with our traditional judicial procedure or complimentary to our jury system to deny a man trial by jury of his neighbors because he happened to be an official, and had friends and relatives in the community. Plaintiff at the trial challenged only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butterfield v. Sevier Valley Hosp.
... ... Id. For example, in Chamblee v. Stocks, 9 Utah 2d 342, 344 P.2d 980 (1959), the supreme court affirmed the denial of a pretrial ... ...
-
Davis Cnty. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P.
... ... Chamblee v. Stocks , 9 Utah 2d 342, 344 P.2d 980, 981 (1959). We hold that the district court acted well ... ...
-
Utah State University of Agriculture and Applied Science v. Sutro & Co.
... ... (herein referred to as USU) against the five named defendants, who are brokers and dealers in stocks and securities (herein referred to as the brokers), to recover losses sustained by USU as a result ... Carness Corp., 611 P.2d 378; Roskelley & Co. v. Lerco, Inc., Utah, 610 P.2d 1307 ... 20 Chamblee ... ...
-
State v. Kazda
... ... --------------- ... 1 See State v. Burris, 15 Utah 2d 109, 388 P.2d 232; Chamblee v. Stocks, 9 Utah 2d 342, 344 P.2d 980; Winters v. Turner, 74 Utah 222, 278 P. 816 ... 2 See ... ...