Hubbard v. Town of Mason City

• Decision Date: 22 July 1884
• Parties: HUBBARD v. THE TOWN OF MASON CITY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

20 N.W. 172

64 Iowa 245

HUBBARD v. THE TOWN OF MASON CITY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

July 22, 1884

Appeal from Floyd Circuit Court.

THIS is an action for a personal injury alleged to have been received by plaintiff by falling upon a defective sidewalk in Mason City. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff for one dollar, and he appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Blythe & Markley and P. J. Dougherty, for appellant.

Miller & Cliggitt and Starr & Harrison, for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, CH. J.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff was in Mason City on the first day of December, 1880, from sometime in the forenoon until after dark. His business there appears to have been to give some attention to a prosecution which was pending before the district court against him for keeping a saloon at Rockwell, the place of his residence. He appears to have spent most of the day in the saloons of the city. After nightfall he left a saloon to go to the railroad depot to take a train for his home. He claims that on his way to the depot he fell and injured his ankle by reason of a defect in the sidewalk. He was the principal witness upon the trial and, while he was able to remember distinctly that he was injured by a fall upon a defective sidewalk, it was about all that occurred to him on that day of which he could give any intelligent account. The fact is, as is abundantly shown by the record, that he was beastly drunk for some time before he claims he received the injury. He was so drunk as to need assistance in going up stairs. It is true, one of his counsel, who was with him on that day, and others who saw him, testified that he was not drunk, and, while we might not be inclined to set aside a verdict of a jury upon the evidence if they had found him to be sober, yet the very decided preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that he was drunk. That he was injured in some way is not questioned. His ankle was seriously injured when he reached the depot. He removed his boot, and applied whiskey to it from a bottle which he had in his pocket, and, when the train arrived, he was put aboard of it and went to his home where, for some time, he was under the care of a physician. Now, as a question of fact, if we were called upon to determine it, we would hesitate long before finding that the plaintiff received his injury by reason of a defective sidewalk, because, as the plaintiff is unable to give an intelligent account of anything else that came under his observation on that day, we would be slow to believe his account of the manner in which he...