Howell v. Howell

• Decision Date: 31 August 1877
• Citation: 59 Ga. 145
• Parties: Mary A. Howell et al, plaintiffs in error. v. Singleton G. Howell et al., defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

59 Ga. 145

Mary A. Howell et al, plaintiffs in error. v. Singleton G. Howell et al., defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(August Term, 1877.)

[Bleckley, Judge, having been of counsel in this case, did not preside.]

[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED] Practice in the Superior Court. Jurors. Evidence. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before Judge Rice. Gwinnett Superior Court. September Adjourned Term, 1876.

The following, taken in connection with the opinion, sufficiently reports this case:

The heirs at law of Evan Howell, deceased, filed their bill to set aside and cancel certain deeds of the deceased to Singleton G. Howell, one of his sons, on the ground that they wereprocured by undue and fraudulent influences brought *to bear upon deceased, who was in his dotage. The answer denied the use of any such influences, or that he was in his dotage. On the trial, the jury found for the defendants. Complainants moved for a new trial, on the following, among other grounds;

1. Because the court overruled the motion to put the panel of jurors on their voir dire, as stated in the first head-note.

(The judge adds the following: "Both parties having announced ready, complainants moved the court as therein recited but no facts of special reasons therefore were stated, except that of the importance of the case—the general attention which the case has attracted in consequence of two investigations— that the defendants were residents and the complainants nonresidents of the county. The motion was overruled, and thereupon defendants' counsel remarked, that they did not object to any particular juror or jurors being put upon their voir dire if complainants' counsel would suggest any reason to question the competency of any particular one. Complainants' counsel declined this proposition, saying they claimed it as a matter of right.")

2. Because the court ruled out the following answers of witness Spence, in relation to deceased: "I think he might have been easily controlled by any one seeking to do so during the period above alluded to, " and also: "As answered in the 4th interrogatory, his prejudices rendered him an easy prey to any designing person. In his best days, his prejudices went a long way with him."

3. Because the court ruled out the following answer of Mrs. Mary D. Howell: "I knew that defendant deceived his father in relation to the property his wife would get from her father's estate."

Also, in ruling out the following answer of witness, Mrs. Abbott: "Witness thinks that his state of mind, in respect to S. G.'s condition, was occasioned and brought about by the representations and the exercise of influence over deceased bythe latter (S. G.) he being in the habit of humoring *his fancies and whims, could make him (deceased) believe anything "

Also, the following answer of Mrs. Abbott: "And it seemedto witness, that Singleton\'s and his wife\'s object was not to allow any opportunity for anything to be said to deceased, or by him to any one, without one or the other hearing what was said."

4. Because the court ruled out the question asked the witness, Mrs. J. A. Graham, after she had stated that "directly after Agnes (defendant's wife) came back from Illinois, she heard deceased say that Singleton would get nothing scarcely from his father-in-law's estate, " viz: "Who did deceased say informed him of this?" expecting the answer, "Singleton informed me."

Also, because the court rejected the answer of witness, Graham, that "deceased said that Singleton had told him so."

5. Because the court ruled out the following answer of witness, Mrs. Brown, when offered as evidence, both in chief and in rebuttal: "That the old man told me, in 1867, that the day he went to Lawrenceville with Singleton to make the deeds of gift, that he (defendant) had a bottle of wine, and induced him to drink of it, and if he had had his wits about him at the time, he would not have made the deeds of gift to him. He also told me that he was not satisfied with the way he had given his property, and that he intended to have it back again."

6. Because the verdict is contrary to law and equity, to the charge of the court, and to the evidence.

The motion was overruled, and complainants excepted.

Pendente lite, counsel for defendants filed a bill of exceptions, reciting certain rulings of the court; but as no assignment of error was made thereon, the court refused to consider it, as stated in the seventh head-note.

A. T. Akerman; Clark & Pace; W. A. Hawkins; T. M. Peeples; J. N. Glenn; N. L. Hutchins, for plaintiffs in error.

*Winn & Simmons; McCay & Trippe; Hillyer & Brother; J. J. Floyd, for defendants.

JACKSON, Judge.

This case was here before, on an alleged error in the court below in granting the defendant a new trial, when the verdict was against him. Now the verdict is for him, the court below has refused the complainants a new trial, and they bring up the case on various grounds of error contained in their motion for a new trial.

1. The first ground is the refusal of the court to purge the panel of jurors from which a special jury of twelve men was to be stricken, on demand of the defendants, the plaintiffs in error...