Jones v. Turpin
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Citation | 53 Tenn. 181 |
| Parties | John Jones v. David Turpin. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal in error from the judgment of the Circuit Court, July Term, 1868. L. C. HOUK, J.Baxter, Champion & Ricks, and H. R. Gibson for plaintiff in error, cited, as to the admissibility of evidence to show what took place before the grand jury when the testimony was given on which the true bill was found; 1 Greenl. Ev., s. 252; 2 Ib., 450; Meigs' Dig., s. 666, sub-s. 3; Crocker v. State, Meigs, 127; Granger v. Warrington, 3 Gill., 310; Stephens' Nisi Prius, 2286; Lowe's case, 4 Greenl., 439; Page v. Hall, 3 Scammon, 45; 3 Johns., 234; 4 Carr. & Payne, 444.
An anonymous brief for defendant in error insisted that at the common law, the transaction of the grand jury were never permitted to be revealed: citing 1 Greenl. Ev., s. 252; McAnally v. Williams, 3 Sneed, 26. “The court may, under ss. 5083, 5084 of the Code, remove the seal of silence in two cases only, neither of which is here made out.”
In an action for the malicious prosecution, to charge the jury, “you may give what is called vindictive damages, that is, such damages as will satisfy the highly excited feelings of the party injured,” is clearly error. While a jury may give vindictive damages, such damages are not to be measured by the “feelings” of the plaintiff as defined by the Circuit Judge, but are to be such damages as a reflecting and dispassionate jury investigating and weighing the charge out of which the civil suit grows, and its attending circumstances, may conclude are proper and right. If the highly excited feelings of the injured party were to control,, then it would be necessary for the jury to decide any question other than that the prosecution was malicious, without regard to the magnitude of the crime or offence charged, as the punishment affixed by law to such crime or offense, and without regard to the amount or subject matter of the litigation or prosecution out of which the suit for damages arises, all these things are fit matters for the consideration of the jury and must enter into and control the process of its conclusions.
Under the rule laid down by the Circuit Court, the plaintiff may say that any given amount will satisfy him, and there is no mode by which a jury can avoid returning that amount as their verdict, and the province of the jury as conservators of law and administrators of right, is utterly overthrown and the prejudices and passions of the plaintiff substituted.
The jury without that regard to the highly excited feelings of the plaintiff imposed by the charge in this case, must take the facts and surrounding circumstances as developed by the evidence, and from these alone determine whether the plaintiff is entitled to any, or how much,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall Oil Company v. Barquin
... ... R. R. Co. v. Prentice, (147 U.S.) 101; ... Kestor v. Wagner, 22 Wyo. 516; the lease was not ... void except as to the homestead value; Jones v ... Losekamp, 19 Wyo. 83; the Midwest Co. was obligated ... under its lease from the Hall Oil Co. to commence drilling ... within a fixed time ... 123, 112 S.W. 203; Willis & ... Bro. v. McNeill, supra; Bryan v. Acee, 27 Ga. 87; ... Holmes v. Holmes, 64 Ill. 294; Jones v ... Turpin, 53 Tenn. 181; 1 Sedg. on Damages, 9th Ed., Sec ... In Ry ... Co. v. Myzell, the charge was that "if you find for the ... plaintiffs, ... ...
-
State v. Rhoads
...84 Md. 383; State v. Broughton, 29 N. Car., 96, 45 Am.Dec. 507; Bressler v. People, 117 Ill. 422; State v. Moran, 15 Ore., 262; Jones v. Turpin, 53 Tenn. 181; State v. 100 Pac. Rep., 2; Burnham v. Hatfield, 5 Blackf. (Ind.), 21; Gordon v. Commonwealth, 92 Pa. St., 216; Section 7191, Revised......
-
Cramer v. Harmon
...2491, 2506, 2508; State v. Thomas, 99 Mo. 235; State v. Ragsdale, 59 Mo.App. 590; Insurance Co. v. Healey, 151 Mass. 537; Jones v. Turpin, 53 Tenn. 181 (Heisk.) . (4) evidence of the grand juror had no effect on the merits or the result of the trial, and, even if incompetent, its admission ......
-
State v. Putnam
...require the proceedings to be disclosed. State v. Moran, 15 Or. 262, 14 P. 419; United States v. Farrington (D.C.) 5 Fed. 343; Jones v. Turpin, 53 Tenn. 181; Burdick v. Hunt, 43 Ind. 382. The court in the ruling complained of probably proceeded on the theory, as the state's counsel does in ......