Emil Wittig v. George Burnap
| Decision Date | 03 February 1926 |
| Parties | EMIL WITTIG v. GEORGE BURNAP |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
January Term, 1926.
ACTION OF TORT for assault and battery. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1925, Bennington County, Thompson, J presiding. Verdict and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff excepted. The opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
Reuben Levin for the plaintiff.
William J. Meagher and Frank C. Archibald for the defendant.
Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, SLACK, and BUTLER, JJ.
The action is tort alleging assault and battery and false imprisonment. The trial was by jury, and there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff saved certain exceptions to the exclusion of offered evidence and other exceptions to statements made by defendant's counsel in argument to the jury. These are the only questions brought up for review.
The evidence was confined to the charge of assault and battery. The wrong complained of consisted of an unnatural sexual act alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff, with force and against his will. Plaintiff's evidence tended to support the charge, which was emphatically denied by the defendant. During the direct examination of the plaintiff as a witness in his own behalf, an offer of certain detailed conversations between the plaintiff and defendant, unrelated to the matter in issue, was made and excluded. The evidence was offered in the way of inducement, in view of the character and nature of the assault, as showing how plaintiff became on friendly terms with the defendant. Later, during the direct examination of a witness with whom plaintiff boarded, an offer of a conversation between the witness and defendant respecting the plaintiff, likewise unrelated to the matter in issue, was made and excluded. This evidence was offered in effect to show the friendly relations existing between the plaintiff and defendant. The exceptions saved to the exclusion of these offers raise the same question.
The exceptions are meagerly, if not inadequately, briefed. It is not attempted to show how the offered conversations were relevant to any fact in issue. As they related to purely collateral matters, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show their legal relevancy. Dalpe v. Bissette et al., 99 Vt. 179, 130 A. 591, and cases cited. Tested by the rule there stated, it is clear that the exclusion of the offers was not legal error.
We quote in full what the record shows respecting the exceptions to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bert Stacy
... ... packages. George Lander, the proprietor of the store, ... testified that he was present, ... the exception is not sustained. Wittig v ... Burnap , 99 Vt. 340, 342, 132 A. 39; Russ v ... Good , 92 ... ...
-
In re Edward H. Everett's Will
... ... Everett, and ... judgment thereon. The proponents, Grace Burnap Everett, widow ... of deceased et al., excepted. The opinion states the ... Vt. 311] tell them that George Burnap had been exonerated; ... that he wanted to serve notice on them ... sexual act, see Wittig v. Burnap , 99 Vt ... 340, 132 A. 39, and decedent apparently thought, ... ...
-
State v. Raymond Parker
... ... affirmatively appear. Wittig v. Burnap,99 ... Vt. 340, 342, 132 A. 39; Button v ... Knight,95 Vt ... ...
-
State v. Irving Lucia
... ... affirmative showing of prejudice. Wittig v ... Burnap , 99 Vt. 340, 342, 132 A. 39; Russ v ... Good , 92 ... ...