Gonsalves v. Baptiste

• Citation: 122 A. 340
• Decision Date: 23 October 1923
• Docket Number: No. 5772.,5772.
• Parties: GONSALVES v. BAPTISTE et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

122 A. 340

GONSALVES

v. BAPTISTE et al.

No. 5772.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Oct. 23, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.

Trespass de bonis asportatis by Minnie Gonsalves against John Baptiste and others. Verdict for plaintiff. On defendants' motion for a new trial, motion denied, and defendants except. Reversed and remitted, with directions.

Benjamin W. Grim, of Providence, for plaintiff.

Daniel A. Colton, of Providence, for defendants.

VINCENT, J. This is an action of trespass de bonis asportatis brought by Minnie Gonsalves against John Baptiste and Jacob D. Jacobson.

On February 2, 1922, Baptiste, one of the defendants here, brought a suit in replevin against the above-named plaintiff, Minnie Gonsalves.

The writ was placed in the hands of Jacobson, a constable authorized to make service of civil process, who, accompanied by Baptiste, made service thereof and removed from the premises of the plaintiff certain household furniture and effects.

The writ of replevin was duly entered in the district court of the Sixth judicial district and there dismissed for want of a sufficient bond. The plaintiff then brought her present suit to recover the damages which she alleges she sustained by reason of the action of the defendants in taking and carrying away her goods. This action is against the two defendants jointly.

The case was tried in the superior court before a justice thereof, sitting with a jury. The jury rendered two verdicts: One against Baptiste for $750, and the other against Jacobson for $25. The verdicts were, in the absence of counsel upon both sides, accepted by the court and duly entered of record.

The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, upon the usual grounds, which was heard and denied by the trial judge.

The proceeding is against the defendants as joint tort-feasors. That being so, the only verdict which could be properly rendered by the jury would be a single verdict against both of them.

The jury having rendered separate verdicts against each of them it would have been competent for the trial court to have given the jury further instructions as to the correct form in which their verdict should be rendered and sent them back to their room for further consideration. This, however, was not done. The jury undertook by their verdicts to apportion the damages between the two defendants. An examination of the record discloses that there was no evidence to...