Jung v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1905 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 14,291 - (147).,s. 14,291 - (147). |
| Parties | SIMON JUNG and Another v. THEO. HAMM BREWING COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
was tried before Bunn, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $300. From an order granting a motion for a new trial, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
Ambrose Tighe, for appellants.
Reese & Zollman, for respondent.
Action to recover the value of certain property alleged to have been wrongfully taken and converted by defendant. Plaintiffs had a verdict in the court below, which was vacated on motion of defendant, and a new trial granted, upon the ground of the misconduct of the attorney for plaintiffs in certain remarks made by him in his address to the jury, from which order plaintiffs appealed.
The question whether a new trial shall be granted on the ground of misconduct of counsel in his remarks to the jury rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court; and when that court has considered and passed upon a motion based upon that ground, and granted a new trial, this court will not interfere, unless it appear that the discretion of the trial court was clearly abused. Watson v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 42 Minn. 46, 43 N. W. 904; Loucks v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 526, 18 N. W. 651; Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 49 Minn. 457, 52 N. W. 213. The rule stated applies to and controls the case at bar.
The remarks of counsel to the jury, which the trial court held prejudicial, were as follows:
Those breweries in this city and in all these big cities have got to rule with a rod of iron, and these men who run saloons and buy goods from them are nothing but their galley slaves in nine cases out of ten. Is that man Broos a free man? I should like to know how. He is doing business over on the West Side. By whose indulgence, by whose permission, is he doing business? By the permission of the Hamm Brewing Company. It owns his license. It can revoke his capacity to do business. It owns the building. * * * It owns the fixtures. It owns the bar. It owns him. And that is the way with ninetenths of these saloon keepers around the city. They are owned by the brewery companies, and the brewery companies have to rule them with a rod of iron. And here were two farmers who came up and started a saloon on Payne avenue, and owed the Hamm Brewing Company $68, and they had the boldness and the temerity and the rashness to give a chattel mortgage to another one of their creditors, and the Hamm Brewing Company came in and wiped them out of existence. Now, let every saloonkeeper in St. Paul understand that that is what happens [to] any saloonkeeper who owes us money, tries to do business. We will take the chances of what [may] happen. What chances do we take? Why, these brewing companies are tremendous organizations. They are built up by men of ability. Mr. Hamm, who went on that witness stand, is a man of ability and character and reputation, and the others of them are able men. There isn't any doubt about it, and a great many of them good men — men who do good in the community, but who are as powerful as kings. Just think; three hundred saloons in this city! Almost every one of them owned by these brewing companies. Go into any of your legislative bodies, your common councils, your city boards, even your mayor, in almost any of these large cities —...
To continue reading
Request your trial