Cline v. State

• Decision Date: 09 October 1900
• Citation: 25 Ind.App. 331,58 N.E. 210
• Parties: CLINE v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

25 Ind.App. 331

58 N.E. 210

CLINE

v.STATE.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Oct. 9, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Delaware county; Joseph G. Lefler, Judge.

Prosecution of John C. Cline for assault and battery. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

P. D. Smith, for appellant. Edward M. White, W. L. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Merrill Moores, and C. C. Hadley, for appellee.

WILEY, J.

Appellant was prosecuted and convicted before a justice of the peace for an assault and battery upon the person of one Catherine McDonald. From this judgment he appealed to the court below. Upon being arraigned before the justice of the peace, he entered a plea of not guilty. In the circuit court, without withdrawing his plea of not guilty, or without asking permission of the court to withdraw it, he moved to quash the affidavit. This motion was overruled, and, without further plea, he was put upon his trial before a jury, and was found guilty. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and a judgment of conviction was entered. Overruling appellant's motion for a new trial is the only error assigned. But two questions are discussed by appellant's counsel: (1) Error of the court in propounding to appellant, when testifying in his own behalf, a certain question, and in requiring him to answer it; and (2) in permitting the justice of the peace before whom the cause originated and was tried to amend the transcript certified by him to show that, on being arraigned, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.

Appellant was manager of a corporation engaged in selling house-furnishing goods, etc., on the installment plan, and which had sold some goods to the prosecuting witness. His defense rested upon the ground that the prosecuting witness had defaulted in making her payments, and that by reason thereof, under the terms of the contract of sale, the vendor was entitled to take possession of the goods. It was for this purpose that appellant, in company with two other persons, went to the home of the prosecuting witness on the occasion when it is alleged that the assault and battery was committed.

Appellant was a witness in his own behalf, and in his examination in chief his counsel asked this question: “Mr. Cline, * * * you may tell the jury what you know or heard of Mrs. McDonald being a quarrelsome or fighting woman prior to the day you went out there to retake this property;” to which he made the answer: “Well, one of my collectors told me that she said that we could not get the goods, and that she would break anybody'shead that come there after them. That was one thing.” Thereupon, and immediately following this question and answer, the court asked the witness this question: “Then you had notice that they would not give you peaceable possession of the goods when you went there?” to which he replied, “She told the collector that.” Appellant's counsel objected to the question, but did not state any grounds of objection. While it is not one of the duties of the trial judge to interrogate a witness, it is certainly his right and province to do so, if he does it within due bounds and without violating the rules of evidence. The question propounded to the appellant by the trial judge, and of which complaint is made, was certainly as proper and pertinent an inquiry as that which immediately preceded it, for it was directly...