Knipper v. Bechtner
| Decision Date | 31 March 1862 |
| Parties | JOHN G. KNIPPER, BY NEXT FRIEND, Respondent, v. WILLIAM BECHTNER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
A. M. & S. H. Gardner, for appellant.
Flournoy, for respondent.
This was an action for damages for malicious prosecution brought in the St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appealed to this court, and now insists that there was no evidence to support the verdict.
There was some evidence given at the trial preserved in the bill of exceptions, but it does not appear in the bill of exceptions that the evidence there preserved was all the evidence given at the trial. We cannot, therefore, disturb the verdict on that ground. The appellant also insists that a paper purporting to be a transcript from the record of the Recorder's Court of the city of St. Louis was offered by the plaintiff, and erroneously admitted in evidence against his objection. The record only shows that the defendant objected to the paper being given in evidence, without stating the grounds of the objection. We will not look into an objection so made, because we cannot tell what was the real objection made in the court below. Instructions were given in the court below, and some asked by the defendant were refused, but no point is made upon them in this court.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Witte v. Western Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., 58 Mo. 421; Roussin v. St. Louis Perpetual Ins. Co., 15 Mo. 244; Hannibal & St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 37 Mo. 338; Knipper v. Bechtner, 32 Mo. 255; Gillett v. Matthews, 45 Mo. 307; Clarke v. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 55; Mead v. Brotherton, 30 Mo. 201; Sawyer v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. R. C......
-
State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson
...to support the verdict, or that a demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained, all the evidence must appear in the bill. [Knipper v. Bechtner, 32 Mo. 255; Routsong Railroad, 45 Mo. 236; State v. Clarkson, 96 Mo. 364, 9 S.W. 925.] It often occurs that the only complaint is the omissi......
-
Buckley v. Knapp
...specific ground of objection to any other testimony complained of, and this court will not consider the objections. (23 Mo. 438; 25 Mo. 41; 32 Mo. 255; 39 Mo. 229; 40 Mo. 369.) V. The instruction authorizing exemplary damages was properly given for plaintiff. (See authorities, supra.) This ......
-
Allen v. Mansfield
...upon which the circuit court was asked to pass. Roussin v. St. Louis Perp. Ins. Co., 15 Mo. 244; Clark v. Conway, 23 Mo. 442; Knipper v. Bechtner, 32 Mo. 255; Rosenheim v. Am. Ins. Co., 33 Mo. 230; Gillett v. Mathews, 45 Mo. 307. II. Error is alleged in the giving and refusing of instructio......