Malone v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 220.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 220.,220. |
| Citation | 38 F. Supp. 369 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
| Parties | MALONE v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc. |
Barnett, Jones & Barnett, of Jackson, Miss. (Ross Barnett, of Jackson, Miss., and Frank Mize, of Forest, Miss., of counsel), for plaintiff.
R.H. & J.H. Thompson, of Jackson, Miss., for defendant.
This is a motion made by the defendant to set aside the verdict of the jury.
The motion is based on the following alleged grounds:
1. The Court erred in overruling defendant's motion, made at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, to exclude plaintiff's testimony and direct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant.
2. The Court erred in refusing to grant defendant's instruction No. 1, shown of record, which instruction was requested after all testimony on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant had been heard, said instruction being in the following words: "The Court instructs the jury to find for the defendant".
3. The Court erred in instructing the jury that it could award plaintiff punitive and exemplary damages.
4. The jury found contrary to the law.
5. The jury found contrary to the evidence.
6. The jury found contrary to the law and the evidence.
7. The jury found contrary to the weight of the testimony.
8. The jury found contrary to the credible evidence.
9. The verdict is excessive and shocking to the conscience and the amount thereof evidences passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.
10. Other causes to be assigned at the hearing.
The principal ground relied upon is that the verdict of the jury is excessive. The other grounds raised require no further consideration, as they were passed upon by the Court at the trial. The Court finds that the jury was warranted upon the evidence in finding a verdict for the plaintiff.
The jury was justified in concluding that the defendant's employee, Anding, during the course of his employment, in a public place, in the hearing of thirty or forty people, in a loud voice that could be heard a block away, said to the plaintiff: "Don't you want to pay for those cartridges you stole?", and that by using this language Anding charged publicly that plaintiff committed the crime of larceny.
Therefore, the jury was justified in finding, and evidently they did so find, that the language so used by Anding was reckless, and in utter and reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, and were uttered and published with a wicked intent of contributing to the hurt and harm of the plaintiff in his good name and reputation, and with a malicious intent, and with the intent to humiliate him in the eyes of these third persons who heard the utterance, by accusing the plaintiff of stealing cartridges belonging to the defendant.
The Court charged the jury upon the theory of a qualified privilege, and this with the consent of the plaintiff. In the absence of such consent the Court would not so have charged the jury, as the statements made by Anding were not in any wise privileged, and therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover without showing malice.
However, the theory, as has been stated, upon which the Court charged the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brinegar v. San Ore Construction Company
...the verdict is excessive, the verdict should not be set aside unless it shocks the conscience of the Court." Malone v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 38 F.Supp. 369, 370 (D.Miss.1941). "It is so difficult to evaluate pain and suffering. It is perhaps less difficult to evaluate loss of earning......
-
Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner
...Yazoo & M. V. R. Company v. May, supra. See also: Anno. 123 A.L.R. 1120; 15 Am.Jur., Damages, Sec. 266, p. 700; Malone v. Montgomery Ward & Company, 38 F.Supp. 369 (D.C.Miss.); Milner Hotels, Inc. et al. v. Brent, 207 Miss. 892, 43 So.2d 654, 14 A.L.R.2d We have said 'Punitive damages are p......
-
Fornwalt v. Reading Co.
...they take a different view of the case or would have awarded less. 15 Am. Jur., Section 205, p. 622; Malone v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., D.C.Miss.1941, 38 F.Supp. 369, 370; Peltomaa v. Katahdin Pulp & Paper Co., C.C.Me.1906, 149 F. 282. Where there is any margin for a reasonable differen......
-
Jones v. Atlantic Refining Co.
...sense of justice, and the impropriety of allowing it to stand is manifest. Boyle v. Ward, D.C.Pa. 39 F.Supp. 545; Malone v. Montgomery Ward & Co., D.C.Miss., 38 F.Supp. 369; Peltomaa v. Katahdin Pulp & Paper Co., C. C., 149 F. 282. When there is any margin for a reasonable difference of opi......