Davis v. Richardson
Decision Date | 22 July 1905 |
Citation | 89 S.W. 318,76 Ark. 348 |
Parties | DAVIS v. RICHARDSON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Stone Circuit Court; FREDERICK D. FULKERSON, Judge reversed.
Stuckey & Stuckey, Morris M. Cohn, and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellant.
Yancey & Casey and Wright & Reeder, for appellee.
This court will not reverse a cause where there is evidence to support the verdict. 13 Ark. 317; 51 Ark. 115, 324; 57 Ark 577; 23 Ark. 208; 13 Ark. 385; 25 Ark. 89, 482; 27 Ark. 517; 46 Ark. 524; 47 Ark. 196; 50 Ark. 511. Testimony introduced without objection cannot be complained of. 1 Ark. 224; 6 Ark 456; 7 Ark. 488; 9 Ark. 389; 10 Ark. 184; 13 Ark. 437; 15 Ark. 128; 17 Ark. 188; 18 Ark. 34; 36 Ark. 653, 221, 304; 39 Ark. 221; 52 Ark. 180. The instruction upon the question of an assault was proper. Kirby's Dig. § 1583; 43 Ind 146; 3 Cyc. 1020. Instructions Nos. 1 and 4 correctly stated the law. 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law. 975; 38 Am. Rep. 703; 66 Id. 805; 8 Ark. 183; 15 Ark. 491; 36 Ark. 242; 42 Ark. 57; 71 Ark. 351; 23 Ark. 215; 71 Ark. 574; 69 Ark. 448. Appellant should have asked to have the instructions amended. 56 Ark. 602; 60 Ark. 613; 47 Ark. 196; 45 Ark. 539. The instructions as to the measure of damages were correct. 19 Am. Rep. 319; 50 Id. 143; 67 Am. Dec. 560; 82 Id. 670; 17 F. 913; 6 Dana, 477; 80 Me. 177; 61 Md. 89; 16 S.C. 575; 4 Wis. 85; 24 Wis. 452; 50 Mo. 361.
Eliza Richardson, by her next friend, filed a complaint in the Stone Circuit Court, alleging that the defendant W. E. Davis, on the 27th day of April, 1902, assaulted her in his storehouse near St. James, in Stone County, in this State, by seizing and embracing her in a rude and indecent manner, in consequence of which she, being in feeble health, suffered a severe shock to her nervous system and much humiliation; and that before that, on the same day, he made indecent proposals to her at the house of Ed. Grigsby; and she claimed $ 8,000 damages.
The defendant denied all these allegations.
In the trial of the issue in the case the plaintiff, in part, testified that on the 17th day of April, 1902, she went to the defendant's store, and no one was there. She then went to Mrs. Grigsby's, and found her there and the defendant. After a short conversation Mrs. Grigsby left the room, and Davis then told her, the plaintiff, to go home through a certain hollow, and he would meet her there; that he had something to tell her. In a short time Mrs. Grigsby returned, and Davis left. In a short time after this, on the same day, she went to Davis's store to buy some goods, and he again said to her that he had something to tell her, and "Don't you tell a thing about it; I will make it all right." He pulled, hugged and kissed her, "and acted like he was going to do something else." She escaped, and, as she did so, he said, "Don't you tell anything about it." At this time the plaintiff was fifteen years old.
The defendant, testifying, denied the conversation at Mrs. Grigsby's and the assault and conversation at the store.
Other evidence was adduced.
The court, over the objections of the defendant, instructed the jury as follows:
The plaintiff recovered judgment for $ 4,000, and the defendant appealed.
The trial court erred in giving to the jury instruction numbered 4. Under it they might have found that appellant committed an assault upon appellee by making the indecent and insulting proposal to her at Mrs. Grigsby's, and under instruction numbered 5 returned a verdict against him for damages. The proposal was not an assault, and, being unaccompanied by a physical injury, did not give the appellee the right to recover damages on account thereof. It was not an element of damage. Peay v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 64 Ark. 538, 43 S.W. 965.
What we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
El Dorado & Bastrop Railroad Company v. Whatley
...submit to a jury issues upon which there was no evidence to support a finding. 63 Ark. 177; Id. 563; 70 Ark. 441; 70 Ark. 136; 74 Ark. 19; 76 Ark. 348; Id. 599; 77 Ark. 20. When warned and instructed, minor is then in the same position as an adult. That it is negligence which will bar recov......
-
Pierce v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
...appellee. There can be no recovery against a railroad company for mental anguish alone. 84 Ark. 42; 89 Ark. 187; 70 Ark. 136; 64 Ark. 538; 76 Ark. 348; 67 Ark. 123; 82 Ark. 289; 4 Suth. 1245; 23 Mo.App. 216; 88 Ga. 763; 6 Nev. 224; 71 Me. 227; 147 Pa. 40. OPINION HART, J. On the 30th day of......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Taylor
... ... recovery for mental anguish independent [84 Ark. 46] of and ... disconnected from a physical injury. And in ... Richardson v. Davis, 76 Ark. 348, 89 S.W ... 318, we held that there could be no recovery of damages by a ... female from an individual for mental anguish on ... ...
- Wright v. Midland Valley Railroad Co.