Eattaeee v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 21 October 1887
• Citation: 4 S.E. 684,79 Ga. 574
• Parties: Eattaeee v. Chapman.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

4 S.E. 684

79 Ga. 574

Eattaeee

v.Chapman.

Supreme Cmirt of Georgia.

October 21, 1887.

1. Witness--Impeachment—General Character—Speoipio Acts.

In an action to recover damages for a to., where it is sought to show the general bad character of plaintiff, evidence of specific acts are inadmissible.

2 Plbaeing—Proof—Admissibilitt of Evidence—Aider by Verdii!T.

In an action to recover for an assault and battery, the declaration did not state In direct terms that the injuries complained of were permanent, but might properly be so construed, and evidence of permanent injuries were admitted without objection. Held, an objection could not be made after verdict.

3. Assault and Battery—Civil Action—Justification—Mitigation.

Defendant pleaded the general issue in a civil action for an assault and battery, and the court instructed the jury that, if they found that the trespass was committed as charged, then they could only consider evidence tending to show self-defense, and abusive language on the part of plaintiff, in mitigation of damages, in the absence of a plea of justification. Held no error.

4. Damages—Exemplary—"Public Good and Justice"—Deterring Others.

In a civil action to recover damages for an assault and battery, held, that the law of Georgia only allows exemplary damages, in such cases, either to deter the wrongdoer, eras compensation for the wounded feelings of plaintiff; and an instruction to the jury which authorized them to give exemplary damages if they thought the public good required it, or to deter others, was erroneous.

5. Same—Exemplary Damages—Interest up to Trial.

In an action for a tort where exemplary damages may be given, it was error to instruct the jury that they might allow interest on the sum allowed the plaintiff from the time of the injury to the trial.

Error from city court of Atlanta; Van Epps, Judge.

Action by Sarah A. Chapman against Alexander Rattaree to recover damages for an assault and battery. There was verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brought error.

N. J. & T. A. Hammond, for plaintiff in error, Gartrell & Ladson, for defendant in error.

Simmons, J. Sarah A. Chapman brought suit against Alexander Rattaree for damages alleged to have been sustained by her for an assault and battery committed on her person by the defendant, Rattaree. On the trial of the ease, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for damages. The defendant made a motion for new trial, on the several grounds contained therein. The court overruled the motion upon each and all of the grounds; and the defendant excepted to this judgment overruling the motion, and assigned the same as error.

1. We see no error in excluding the answer of the witness Alexander to the question asked him about his mother. The counsel admitted, in answer to the court, that it was for the purpose of proving her to be a "low, vile woman." If that was the purpose, it could not be done by proof of specific acts of adultery, but by proof of general bad character. We are not satisfied that the ground the judge put the exclusion of it on is not good also. The witness was a youth of tender years; not perhaps knowing, or capable of properly considering, the effect of an affirmative answer to the question. The judge may have been right in protecting him. We put our decision, however, on the other ground. See, on this subject, Goodrum v. State, 60 Ga. 509.

2. We see no error in the third ground of the motion. While the declaration does not charge, in words, that the injuries were permanent, yet, from the allegations therein, it might properly be so construed. Evidence as to the injuries being permanent was admitted without objection. "If proof be allowed to go to the jury without objection, outside of those alleged, we hardly think that the plaintiff should be held strictly to the allegata no objection having been made to the admission of the evidence, and no motion to rule it out. The reason is obvious after verdict, because, by amendment, the declaration could have been amended so as to cover the admitted allegations." Railway v. Barher, 71 Ga. 648; Howard v. Barrett, 52 Ga. 15; Field v. Martin, 49 Ga. 268. As the case will be sent back for a new trial, this allegation can be made by amendment, if counsel so desire.

3. Error is assigned in the fourth ground because the court charged the jury as follows: "No special plea of justification is filed; that is, no plea bythe defendant admitting use of the violence alleged in the declaration, and justifying it by saying that the plaintiff provoked the assault by the use of opprobrious words or abusive language, or that the plaintiff was the aggressor and made the first assault, and that the defendant used such force in self-defense. Had the defendant desired to show a justification of the matters charged, it is incumbent on him to specially plead it. Having failed to do so, he impliedly admits that if the jury shall find, from the evidence, that he committed an assault and battery in the manner and form as alleged, that it was done not under circumstances of legal justification. But the defendant insists that he did not use any positive or aggressive force towards the plaintiff, or harmful violence upon her person at all; that she made an assault upon him, and that he only used such force as was necessary to escape out of her hands, —that is, he denies that he committed any assault and battery upon her whatever. These constitute the issues you are to try and determine by your verdict." "The court instructs the jury that, under the pleadings in this case, the only question for the jury to determine is whether the defendant...