Hubbard v. Inc. Town of Mason City

• Decision Date: 18 January 1883
• Parties: HUBBARD v. INCORPORATED TOWN OF MASON CITY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

60 Iowa 400

14 N.W. 772

HUBBARD

v.INCORPORATED TOWN OF MASON CITY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed January 18, 1883.

Appeal from Floyd circuit court.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff on the defendant's sidewalk. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $500. The defendant appeals.Miller & Cliggett and Starr & Harrison, for appellant.

P. J. Daugherty, Blythe & Mackley, and J. S. Root, for appellee.

DAY, J.

1. The first point made by the appellant is that the plaintiff failed to show his own freedom from fault and negligence, and that the verdict is therefore not sustained by the evidence. This point is merely suggested, and does not seem to be relied upon with any confidence. Indeed, we have some doubt whether we ought not to refuse to consider the point at all, upon the ground that it has not been argued by appellant. We are of opinion, however, that the objection to the verdict is not well taken.

2. Testimony was introduced tending to show that upon the day of the injury the plaintiff was endeavoring to procure signers to a bond for his appearance at court, and that he presented the bond to various parties for that purpose. There was also evidence introduced tending to show that at the time the plaintiff was in a state of intoxication. The defendant offered to prove by several witnesses the financial standing of the parties whom plaintiff was endeavoring to procure to sign the bond. Upon the objection of the plaintiff the proffered testimony was excluded. The defendant insists that it was competent to show that plaintiff was endeavoring to procure parties who were financially worthless upon his bond as a circumstance for the jury to consider on the question of the plaintiff's intoxication. Evidence that the plaintiff was endeavoring to procure impecunious parties upon a bond of $200 for his appearance at court, bears so remotely and slightly upon the question of his intoxication, that we would not feel justified in disturbing the judgment on account of the exclusion of such evidence.

3. The defendant sought to prove by several witnesses what the plaintiff, on the day he was getting his bail-bond signed, said about being arrested. This evidence was wholly immaterial, and was properly rejected.

4. The evidence shows that the plaintiff had been engaged in farming until within two years of the time of the trial, and that for the two years preceding the trial he had been attending billiard hall and saloon, which was his employment when the accident occurred. The plaintiff was permitted, against the objection of the defendant, to prove that the wages of a farm hand were $15 to $16 per month and board, or $25 per month without board. It is urged that the admission of this evidence was erroneous. Inasmuch as the plaintiff was not a farmer at the time of the accident, nor at the time of the trial, we think evidence of the value of farm labor was immaterial. It...