Crowell v. Jeffries

• Decision Date: 07 April 1922
• Docket Number: No. 11177.,11177.
• Citation: 134 N.E. 908,79 Ind.App. 513
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: CROWELL et al. v. JEFFRIES.

79 Ind.App. 513

134 N.E. 908

CROWELL et al.

v.JEFFRIES.

No. 11177.^*

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

April 7, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Decatur County; John W. Craig, Judge.

Action by Russell N. Jeffries against Charles Crowell and Lizzie Crowell. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Connelley & Connelley, of Milan, and Tremain & Turner, of Greensburg, for appellants.

A. B. Wycoff, of Batesville, and Hugh Wickens and Frank Hamilton, both of Greensburg, for appellee.

McMAHAN, J.

Complaint by appellee against appellants in two paragraphs. The first paragraph charges appellants, who were the parents of appellee's wife, with alienating her affections. The second charges them with malicious prosecution. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict in favor of appellee on the first paragraph. There was no verdict on the second paragraph. No question having been raised as to the effect of the failure of the jury to find on the issues tendered by the second paragraph, the court rendered a judgment against appellants on the first paragraph of complaint.

[1] The only question presented for our consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

Appellee testified that he first met appellants' daughter, Hilda, about the middle of September, 1919, at the home of his parents, where appellee was then living, he then being 23 years old; that soon thereafter he proposed marriage, and she accepted his proposal. He asked her if he should ask her parents, and she said it was not necessary, and that she would be 20 years old the following month. He later asked her if they had not better get married away from Batesville, where they both lived, and she consented to go to Indianapolis, provided his sister would go along. The sister agreed to go with them. This arrangement appears to have been made at the home of appellee, as the witness testified that Hilda went home in the absence of her parents and got her clothes, and on her return they came to Indianapolis, and were married the next day, Saturday, September 27, 1919. They remained at the home of a relative of appellee until the following Tuesday, when appellants came to the house where appellee and his wife were staying. He was not surprised, as his parents had informed him they were looking for their daughter, and that they had notified the police at Indianapolis and other cities. Appellants, accompanying a police matron, came to the house where appellee and his wife were staying about 6 p. m. Tuesday. As soon as the daughter saw her parents, she “changed,” and ran with open arms to her father, threw her arms around him, and fainted. The father, the daughter, appellee, and the matron went to police headquarters, after which the matron returned and got Mrs. Crowell. While at the police station Mr. Crowell asked that appellee be arrested for kidnapping his daughter. No arrest was made, however. During this conversation the police officer told Mr. Crowell that if the daughter wanted to go home with her parents she could do so, and if she wanted to stay she could do so; that she could do as she pleased. The father then asked her if she wanted to go home, and she said, “Yes.” The daughter returned home with appellants. Soon thereafter appellee was arrested on a charge of kidnapping filed at Batesville by the father. This was later dismissed. While this charge was pending he went to appellants' home, and saw both appellants and...