Goodwin v. Aaron
| Decision Date | 15 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 996 |
| Parties | GOODWIN v. AARON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.
Action by Monroe Aaron against P.O. Goodwin for damages for assault and battery. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
L.D Gray and A.F. Fite, both of Jasper, for appellant.
Ray & Cooner, M.L. Leith, and J.H. Bankhead, Jr., all of Jasper for appellee.
The plaintiff (appellee) sued the defendant (appellant) for damages for an assault and battery committed by the latter upon the former. The appellant interposed a plea of recoupment, a cross-action, claiming damages consequent upon an assault and battery committed on the defendant by the plaintiff on the same occasion. The plaintiff was seriously wounded by pistol shots at the hands of the defendant; and the defendant was cut and bruised about the head by blows inflicted by plaintiff's use of a paper weight. The jury gave plaintiff the verdict in the sum of $8,000.
1. The plaintiff's testimony went to show that he, defendant, and one Mabry met at Mabry's office in Birmingham; that Mabry was a partner with plaintiff; that after he got into the office the defendant, talking at the time to Mabry (dictating, it later appeared), said, "We, the majority of the stockholders of the Goodwin Mining & Mercantile Company, do unanimously agree to go to Cordova and take charge of their property;" that thereupon plaintiff said to defendant: "Goodwin, you can't rob me that way;" that Goodwin made a demonstration as if to draw a pistol, and plaintiff advanced upon Goodwin, struck him with his fist and a paper weight, and forced him to the floor, where plaintiff secured a hold of defendant's pistol and was taking it away from defendant; that Mabry interfered, promised plaintiff safety, and induced plaintiff to let defendant up; and that when plaintiff had heeded Mabry's request, had yielded his advantage, and moved back about ten feet from defendant, defendant shot him several times.
On the examination in chief of plaintiff this question was propounded:
"You speak of this property at Cordova, known as Goodwin Mining & Mercantile Company; were you claiming to own that property at the time?"
The defendant's objection was properly overruled. It was appropriate to give color and explanation, though not, in its very terms, of the res gestae of the occurrence under inquiry. It served to disclose the real essence of the conflict arising when defendant is said to have made the quoted statement to Mabry and the plaintiff said to defendant that he would not be "robbed that way." The answer was in the affirmative.
If the defendant was liable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to recover such expenses, in medical, hospital, and nurse bills, reasonable in amount, as resulted from the wrong suffered. These elements of damage were claimed in some counts of the complaint; and the testimony of Dr. Sowell went to show the reasonableness of the sums paid for the particular services by the plaintiff. Assignments of error 2 and 3 are hence without merit.
On the redirect examination of the defendant's witness Mabry he was asked this question, to which plaintiff's objection was sustained:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial