Edwards v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1926
• Citation: 191 Wis. 328,210 N.W. 686
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWARDS v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO.

191 Wis. 328

210 N.W. 686

EDWARDS

v.MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 9, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Action by Kathryn Edwards against the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company. From an order of the circuit court, granting plaintiff a new trial after reversing a judgment of the civil court setting aside verdict for plaintiff and dismissing complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Plaintiff brought an action in the civil court to recover damages for personal injuries and for injury to her car sustained in a collision with one of defendant's street cars. On the trial she testified she was 28 years old. Her birth record showed her to be 36. She claimed to have been rendered very nervous on account of the shock received at the time of the accident and to have been discharged by two employers on account of her nervousness when she was earning $120 per month. One employer testified she was discharged because there was a general reduction in the force, and the other that she took the place of an employee temporarily absent and upon her return plaintiff's services were dispensed with. Both testified that she was not discharged on account of nervousness and one said her salary was $115 per month and not $120. The jury returned a special verdict entitling plaintiff to a judgment of $700 for personal injuries and $100 for damages to her car. The civil judge set aside the verdict and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint upon the merits on account of the material false testimony given by plaintiff. Upon appeal to the circuit court, it reversed the judgment of the civil court dismissing the complaint, but approved of the setting aside of the verdict, and granted a new trial, at least in part because the alleged false testimony did not affect plaintiff's cause of action for damages to the car and because it appeared that she might be able to secure a verdict for personal injury upon competent evidence. From an order granting a new trial, the defendant appealed.Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Carroll & Thekan, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

VINJE, C. J.

[1][2] We perceive no abuse of discretion on the part of the circuit court in granting a new trial. In such case the order must be affirmed. Raether v. Filer & Stowell Mfg. Co., 155 Wis. 130, 143 N. W. 1035.

As there must be a new trial, we purposely forbear to...