Glass v. Bennett

• Citation: 14 S.W. 1085,89 Tenn. 478
• Parties: GLASS et al. v. BENNETT.
• Decision Date: 08 January 1891
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

14 S.W. 1085

89 Tenn. 478

GLASS et al. v. BENNETT.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 8, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Williamson county; W. K. McALISTER Judge.

Demoss & Malone, J. G. Wallace, and Hearn & Berry, for appellants.

N. N Cox, M. P. Fowlkes, John H. Henderson, and Thomas & House for appellee.

TURNEY C.J.

This suit began in the circuit court of Williamson county on 27th December, 1889. The cause of action is digested by Bennett's attorneys as follows: The plaintiff below sues the defendants for $75,000 damages, and his cause of action as set out in his declaration, is as follows: "First count. That on the ----- day of March, 1889, the plaintiff being a married man, as he had been since May 18, 1881, and living with his wife, Laura Bennett, who was the daughter of defendant S. F. and sister of defendant W. H. Glass, enjoying the comfort, affection, companionship, and service of his said wife, and having a household, the said defendants conspiring together and intending to prejudice and aggrieve the plaintiff as such husband, and deprive him of the comfort, affection, etc., of his said wife, wrongfully and unjustly intending to break up plaintiff's household, and to degrade and injure him in the esteem of his neighbors and of the public, did unlawfully, wrongfully, and unjustly entice, persuade, and procure said Laura Bennett to depart from and out of the companionship and service of the plaintiff, by means of property, in order to render plaintiff houseless and homeless, and by false and untrue statements concerning plaintiff, made by them to plaintiff's wife and others, derogatory of plaintiff's character, intending to bring the plaintiff into disrepute and disgrace in the estimation of his wife, and did thus alienate and destroy the love and affection of his wife for him, and caused her to abandon him and take with her their only child, thus destroying the happiness, peace, comfort, and family relations of plaintiff, and depriving him of the society of his wife," etc. The defendants plead not guilty, upon which issue is joined. There was a trial before a jury in the circuit court of Williamson county, at the April term, 1890, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in said court, and against defendants, for $20,000. On the motion for a new trial, the circuit judge, having intimated that he entertained doubts as to the excessiveness of the verdict, plaintiff entered a remittitur for $7,500. Thereupon the motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendants appealed. On the trial Mrs. Bennett, wife of plaintiff, testified that she followed her husband to the front gate, and up the pavement, begging him to promise her that he would not take her daughter, Agnes, from her, if she brought her home, and that he would not make the promise. The husband denied the statement. It was proposed then to prove by Mrs. Richardson that she saw Mrs. Bennett follow her husband, and heard her begging him piteously to tell her something. She did not hear what. She afterwards asked Mrs. Bennett what she was begging him for, when she told her as Mrs. Bennett stated on the witness stand. On objection the evidence was ruled out. This was error. "The rule is that when it is attempted to be established that the statement of a witness, on oath, is a recent fabrication, or when it is sought to destroy the credit of the witness by proof of contradictory representations, evidence of his having given the same account of the matters at a time when no motive existed to misrepresent the facts ought to be received, because it naturally tends to inspire confidence in the sworn statement." Hayes v. Cheatham, 6 Lea, 10.

The declaration of Mrs. Bennett made at the time she left her home, explanatory of her troubled mental condition, and of her reason for going to her father's house with her child, are competent as parts of the res gest<&lt 8A>>, and also to corroborate her when the effort has been made to discredit her statements as a witness. Mrs. Bennett's declarations to her father, mother, and brother, or others, assigning causes for leaving her home and returning to her father's, and remaining there, are competent, going to establish or disprove a justification on the part of the defendants, or either of them, in advising her, if they did so, in remaining away from home and husband. Any advice given to the husband to...