Farrington v. Cheponis & Parnarusky

• Decision Date: 10 June 1909
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FARRINGTON v. CHEPONIS & PARNARUSKY.

73 A. 139

82 Conn. 258

FARRINGTON

v. CHEPONIS & PARNARUSKY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1909.

Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; George H. Cowell, Judge.

Action by William Farrington against Cheponis & Parnarusky. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Edward B. Reilly, for appellants.

John H. Cassidy, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. This action was brought to recover for injuries claimed to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendants' servant in driving the defendants' horse attached to a wagon in such a manner that it collided with the plaintiff while he was engaged in coasting on a public highway in Waterbury.

The defendants' appeal is based upon several assignments of error; one relating to the action of the court as to improper remarks of counsel and of a juror made during the trial of the case. The question and the manner in which it arose appear from the finding as follows: "The plaintiff introduced as witnesses a number of boys who were coasting on Hill street at the time of the injury, and who were eyewitnesses of the accident. These witnesses were as follows: The plaintiff, 15 years; John Farrington, the plaintiff's brother, 17 years; Michael Canfield, 17 years; and Harry Carter, 15 years. Each witness was subjected to a severe cross-examination by James E. Russell, one of the defendants' counsel. William Farrington was under cross-examination for an hour and a half. John Farrington and Michael Canfield for fully an hour, and Harry Carter during the entire forenoon session, from 10 a. m. to 12:30 p. m. During some part of the cross-examination each boy cried as a result of Mr. Russell's questioning, but did not change the testimony given on the direct. Harry Carter upon cross-examination was asked several questions in relation to the defendants' horse, when he cried. The following then occurred. Question by Mr. Russell, attorney for the defendants, upon cross-examination: Q. 'Why do you feel bad about that?' Mr. Cassidy, attorney for the plaintiff: 'You have made every boy cry that has been on the stand trying to make them tell a lie.' At this point one of the jurors said semiaudibly, 'That's right.' Mr. Russell at once protested against remarks of that kind, and, after the jury had been excused and sent to their room, moved that the jury be discharged from further consideration of the case. The court denied the motion, and stated that: 'I think, in my charge to the jury, possibly I can say that they must regard the evidence and not the manner of counsel, and to remove any possible claim that the manner of counsel has affected the merits of the case.'" Exceptions as to the rulings of the court and the conduct of the trial were then taken. It does not appear that any further reference was made to this subject by the court. The record discloses that the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $500. The law will not sanction the invasion of another's right when it appears that he was not given a fair trial. The improper remarks of counse...