Huett v. Clark

• Decision Date: 09 January 1894
• Citation: 4 Colo.App. 231,35 P. 671
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Parties: HUETT v. CLARK. [1]

35 P. 671

4 Colo.App. 231

HUETT v. CLARK. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Colorado

January 9, 1894

Appeal from district court, Arapahoe county.

Action between A.J. Huett and Edward K. Clark. Judgment for Clark and Huett appeals. Affirmed.

Hipp &amp Tesch, for appellant.

Ralph Talbot, for appellee.

BISSELL P.J.

This action was brought to recover a horse claimed by the parties to this suit. It has evidently engendered a bitter controversy, which is not infrequently the outcome of a dispute between two parties as to the ownership of an animal. Our convictions could be very briefly expressed, but out of deference to the very earnest contentions of counsel, and the exceeding interest of the litigants, we shall notice the several propositions which are assigned as error.

The principal argument is addressed to the consideration of the evidence by which the claims of the respective parties have been supported. Counsel insist that the verdict is unsupported by the testimony, is against its weight and its preponderance, and that the verdict discloses such a bias and prejudice as will permit an appellate tribunal to disregard what is ordinarily treated as conclusive on questions of fact, to wit, the verdict of a jury. We might have contented ourselves with the reannouncement of the well-settled doctrine that wherever there is a conflict of testimony, and there is evidence in the record which may fairly be said to support the verdict, we will not go further in our examination. That we might be certain that the appellant was without a just right of complaint, we have carefully read and considered the proofs. At the outset it is conceded that the appellant's contention that the brand upon the horse was his, and that it therefore demonstrated his title, finds very strong support in the record. The similarity of the two brands is so decidedly close as to render a mistake upon this proposition both easy and natural. Both consist of the two letters D and A. The appellant's brand lacks a crossbar in the A, and is rounded at the top. The A of the appellee's brand ends in sharply-defined lines, and is also distinguished by the bar necessary to make a perfect letter. The brands were produced in court. The animal was examined by the parties in interest and the adherents of their respective opinions, and apparently by disinterested persons, who scrutinized the marks, and expressed their opinion concerning the brand. This very careful examination of the testimony has not served to satisfy us that the jury were influenced by bias or by prejudice, and that their verdict is not well supported by the evidence. We might possibly reach a different result from a consideration of the case as printed but this fact would not justify a conclusion, on our part that the jury were without fair and well-supported reasons for their...