Kern v. Bridwell

• Citation: 119 Ind. 226,21 N.E. 664
• Parties: Kern v. Bridwell.
• Decision Date: 04 June 1889
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

119 Ind. 226

21 N.E. 664

Kern

v.Bridwell.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 4, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county; E. D. Pearson, Judge.

Dunn & Dunn, for appellant. Geo. W. Friedly and Jas. Giles, for appellee.

Olds, J.

This is an action for slander, brought by appellee against the appellant. The complaint charges the defendant with having spoken of and concerning Addie M. Bridwell, an unmarried female under 21 years of age, that she was a whore; that she had slept with one McCain; and that he had sexual intercourse with her, and she had become pregnant, and then procured or suffered an abortion to be procured upon her. The defendant answered by general denial, and a plea of justification, on the grounds of the truth of the allegations. There was a trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, the appellee. The defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and he reserved exceptions to the ruling and appeals to this court. The only error assigned is the ruling on the motion for new trial.

The first ground of complaint is the misconduct of counsel for appellee in the opening argument of the case to the jury. Objection was made to the statements of counsel at the time, and the court called the counsel to order, and informed the jury that the statements were improper, and that the jury must disregard them; it also charged the jury to disregard all irrelevant statements of counsel. The court did all in its power to relieve the party from any injury likely to result from the misconduct of counsel, and there is no action of the court to which an exception can be taken, and there was no error committed by the court. Grubb v. State, 20 N. E. Rep. 257, (this term.)

The next question discussed by counsel is the exclusion of certain testimony. The record shows that the defendant produced a Mrs. Kern as a witness, who testified as to the condition and appearance of the plantiff, Addie M., at the time she was charged by the defendant with having been pregnant, and then asked the witness whether, from the facts stated, the plaintiff was or was not pregnant. Objection was made by plaintiff, and sustained by the court, to which ruling defendant at the time objected. The record also shows that the defendant produced one John Boyd as a witness, who testified to having seen the plaintiff, Addie M., in December, 1883, and described her condition; whereupon the defendant offered to prove by the witness that from what he saw of her, and from her appearance in December, 1883, the plaintiff was, in his opinion, pregnant at that time. There was no question propounded to Boyd calling for an answer as to the pregnancy of the plaintiff, Addie M., nor did defendant state what he proposed to prove by Mrs. Kern in answer to the question propounded to her. In neither case is there any...