Johnson v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 11 October 1932 |
| Citation | 53 S.W.2d 550,245 Ky. 247 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Second Division.
Action by Claire Johnson against Harry Taylor. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Clem W Huggins and J. Rivers Wright, both of Louisville, for appellant.
David R. Castleman, of Louisville, for appellee.
Mrs Claire Johnson owned and conducted for herself, in August 1929, a business in the city of Louisville, Jefferson county, Ky. Harry Taylor at that time was engaged in business in a building adjoining or near the one occupied by Mrs. Johnson.
Taylor, the members of his family, and others habitually parked their automobiles on the street in front of the place of business of Mrs. Johnson. She claimed the parked cars interfered with and hurt her business. She protested to Taylor, which he disregarded, and he and the members of his family, including his wife, continued to park in front of her place of business.
On the day the combat occurred out of which this litigation arose, Mrs. Johnson became exasperated and lost her temper, and, while in this state of mind, she "watered their car" with a hose, at which time it was parked in front of her place, and, while she was so doing, Harry Taylor announced to her, if that was his car, he would have her arrested.
From this point, the stories of the participants and those present diverge. Mrs. Johnson claims that Taylor assaulted her with his hands, violently threw her to the ground; seized her by the throat, and choked her into semi-consciousness, when he was pulled off, and then, while he was in the custody of a policeman, and as she started to pass by him, he, with great force, kicked her, striking her stomach. She was strongly corroborated in part by the policeman.
Taylor and his witnesses detail an entirely different rencounter. They claim that he did not strike Mrs. Johnson; she stumbled or her foot slipped and she fell; he did not choke nor kick her; he merely laid his hands on her shoulder and remonstrated because she made an insulting, offensive, and a reflecting remark about his wife. He claims that he sustained injury inflicted on his face by Mrs. Johnson clawing him with her hands. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Taylor. Her petition was dismissed at her cost. She appeals.
She presents only one ground; i. e., "the verdict is contrary to the evidence and the law." She makes no complaint of the instructions to the jury. She concedes that she is not entitled to a reversal solely because the verdict of the jury is against the preponderance of the evidence. She confines herself to the insistence that the verdict is clearly and flagrantly against the evidence.
The testimony of Mrs. Johnson and her witnesses, and that of Taylor and his witnesses, is irreconcilably conflicting on every material question. The rule obtains that a reversal...
To continue reading
Request your trial