Herndon v. Southern Ry.
Decision Date | 22 May 1913 |
Citation | 78 S.E. 287,162 N.C. 317 |
Parties | HERNDON v. SOUTHERN RY. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Justice, Judge.
Action by Sallie R. Herndon against the Southern Railway. Judgment for plaintiff for less than the relief demanded, and she appeals. Affirmed.
An instruction that, in weighing the evidence, the jury should consider the interest of the parties, the conduct of the witnesses, their demeanor, interest, and bias, and means of knowing that to which they testified, and their character and reputation, held proper.
Civil action tried at September term, 1912, Mecklenburg Superior Court, Justice, Judge, upon these issues: (1) Was the feme plaintiff, Sallie R. Herndon, injured by the negligence of defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes. (2) What damages are the plaintiffs entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $500. From the judgment rendered plaintiff appealed.
Maxwell & Keerans, of Charlotte, for appellant.
O. F Mason, of Gastonia, and Shannonhouse & Jones, of Charlotte for appellee.
The only assignment of error is directed to the charge of the court. It must be admitted by any one who reads the charge in this case that it is a full, clear, and accurate statement of the law bearing upon each issue. As each issue is found for plaintiff, it would seem that she has no reason to complain of the judge. If she was not awarded as large damages as she hoped for, it was evidently because the jury did not think she had sustained them. The charge upon the issue of damage was especially liberal to plaintiff, and permitted the jury to take into consideration every possible element of damage permissible in such cases, especially suffering in body and mind and shock to the nervous system. Taking the charge as a whole, we find nothing that either party can justly complain of. Speight v. Railroad, 76 S.E. 686.
His honor, after charging fully, fairly, and correctly on each issue, concluded his charge with those words, to which plaintiff excepts, to wit: ""Weigh all of this evidence, gentlemen, in every way, and in weighing it you have a right to take into consideration the interest that the parties have in the result of your verdict, the conduct of the witnesses upon the stand and their demeanor, the interest that they may have shown, or bias, upon the stand, the means they have of knowing that to which they testify, their character and reputation in weighing this testimony so as to arrive at the truth of what this matter is; take the case, gentlemen." This is but an admonition to the jury and not pointed to any particular witness or party. It applies with equal force to the defendant as to plaintiff and to all witnesses alike. The record shows that the defendant introduced quite a number of witnesses including some in its employ. In no sense can the charge quoted be considered as an expression of opinion upon the facts upon the part of the judge, and it is hard to see how it could be prejudicial to one party more than to the other. His honor's charge is but a caution to the jury, and is supported by authority.
In Hill v. Sprinkle, 76 N.C. 353, the trial judge was requested to instruct the jury "that when there is a conflict of testimony between witnesses of equal respectability, one of whom is a party in interest and the other not, the jury have the right to consider the question of interest in deciding upon the credibility of the witnesses"; and the court said:
It is said in 30 A. & E. Ency. 1094: "While the testimony of a party in interest, as that of any other witness, must be submitted to the jury, the interest *** is a matter to be considered by the jury in weighing the testimony and determining what force it shall have."
"An instruction to the jury that they may consider the relations of the parties and witnesses, their interest, temper, bias, demeanor, intelligence, and credibility in testifying, is not a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting judges from charging juries with respect to matters of fact, or commenting thereon." Klepsch v. Donald, 4 Wash. 436, 30 P. 991, 31 Am. St. Rep. 936; Salazar v. Taylor, 18 Colo. 538, 33 P. 369; 46 Cent. Dig. tit. "Trial," 418, 193.
The instruction was not only very general in its character, but was not even imperative. It did not require the jury to scrutinize the testimony or even to consider the interest of parties, but stated simply that the jury had the right so to do.
In this respect the case is clearly distinguishable from the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for plaintiff. In those cases, the court directed the jury to "scrutinize all the evidence with great caution, considering their interest in the result of the verdict," or that it should "be regarded with suspicion and carefully scrutinized," or "to scrutinize the testimony of the defendants and receive it with grains of allowance on account of their interest," or that "it was their duty to scrutinize the testimony," or to ""scrutinize the testimony and receive it with grains of allowance," or some similar direction whereas, in the case at bar, the trial judge simply informed the jury that they had "a right to take into consideration the interest that the parties have in the result of your verdict, the conduct of the witnesses upon the stand, and their demeanor, the interest that they may have shown or bias upon the stand, the means they have of knowing that to which they testified, their character and reputation, in weighing this testimony, so as to arrive at the truth of what the matter is." This charge did not single out the plaintiff as an object of suspicion, as in State v. Holloway, 117 N.C. 732, 23 S.E. 168, in which the court instructed the jury "they had a right to scrutinize closely the testimony of the defendants, and receive it with grains of allowance, on account of their interest in the event of the action." To same effect is State v. Graham, 133 N.C. 652, 45 S.E. 514, and State v. McDowell, 129 N.C. 532, 39 S.E. 840; State v. Vann, 77 S.E. 298. In Speight v. Railway, 76 S.E. 686, the court singled out the plaintiff and charged, "It is your duty to carefully consider the testimony of the plaintiff and ascertain as best you can what influence the interest she has in the suit would have upon *** her testimony," etc. It is useless to comment further upon the cases cited by plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial