Hannabalson v. Sessions

• Citation: 116 Iowa 457,90 N.W. 93
• Parties: HANNABALSON v. SESSIONS.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1902
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

116 Iowa 457

90 N.W. 93

HANNABALSON

v.SESSIONS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 12, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Pottawattamie county; N. W. Macy, Judge.

Action at law to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Lindt & Mynster, for appellant.

Jacob Sims, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

Plaintiff and defendant live upon adjoining lots. There is frequent war between the families. The casus belli in the present instance is to be found in the following circumstances: Upon the boundary line between the lots is a tight board fence, a part of which was built by plaintiff's husband; but, unfortunately, this barrier, while all sufficient to prevent the passage of the dove of peace, is neither high enough nor tight enough to prevent the interchange of brick bats or the bandying of opprobrious epithets. On May 30, 1898, the defendant, while at work in his garden, claimed to have narrowly escaped a brick hurled in his direction by one of plaintiff's children, and in his indignation at the unprovoked bombardment threatened the lad with arrest. Plaintiff and her husband, being at work near by, heard the threat, and took up the quarrel. About this time plaintiff's husband discovered that a ladder belonging to defendant was hanging upon a peg or block attached to the partition fence, and, conceiving this to be a cloud upon his title, he forthwith attempted to remove it, while defendant, seeing the peril in which his property was placed, rushed to its defense. Whether plaintiff herself laid violent hands on the ladder is a matter of grave dispute. She denies it, and says that the height and depth of her offending consisted in her leaning up against the fence with one arm quietly hanging over the top thereof, and in stimulating her husband's zeal by audible remarks about the “crazy fool” who was bearing down upon them from the other side. She further avers that while occupying this position of strict neutrality the defendant assaulted her vi et armis, and with his clenched fist struck the arm which protruded over the fence top into his domain. Defendant denies the striking, and says that plaintiff, instead of being a peaceable and impartial observer of the skirmish, was herself a principal actor, and that in aid of her husband she climbed upon some convenient pedestal, and, hanging herself across the fence, reached down, and with malice aforethought seized the ladder and wrenched it from its resting place. Thereupon, actuated by a natural and lawful desire to protect his property from such ravishments, and being goaded on by statements from the other side of the fence reflecting upon his mother and casting doubt upon his proper rank in the animal kingdom, he gently, and without unreasonable force, laid his open hand upon plaintiff's arm, and mildly but firmly suggested the propriety of her “keeping on her own side of the fence.” As is usual in cases of this kind the testimony of the principal parties is entirely irreconcilable, and, as is also usual, each is supported by partisan witnesses in a very emphatic manner. More than a year after the alleged assault this action for damages was begun, and plaintiff swears that, as a result of the blow upon her arm, she has during all that time been sick, weak, nervous, suffering great pain and anguish, and is to a great extent a physical and nervous wreck. On the other hand, some of defendant's witnesses testify, in effect, that, whatever may be plaintiff's bodily ills, they have existed for many years, while others tell us that since the alleged assault they have seen...