Perrine v. Hanacik

• Decision Date: 09 December 1913
• Citation: 138 P. 148,40 Okla. 359,1913 OK 704
• Parties: PERRINE v. HANACIK.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

138 P. 148

40 Okla. 359, 1913 OK 704

PERRINE v. HANACIK.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 9, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

If one present at a quarrel encourages a battery, he assumes the consequences of the act to its full extent as much as the party who does the beating; and, where the evidence reasonably tends to connect defendant therewith as an aider and abettor, this court will not disturb a verdict against him.

Error from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; Edward D. Oldfield Judge.

Action by Jarasalov Hanacik against James K. Perrine. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Burwell Crockett & Johnson, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Pruiett & Sniggs and Selwyn Douglas, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

TURNER J.

This is an action in damages for an assault and battery brought by Hanacik, defendant in error, against Jas. K. Perrine plaintiff in error, in the district court of Oklahoma county. The last amended petition substantially states that on August 23, 1909, defendant and his son, Walter, were owning and operating a livery stable in Oklahoma City; that on said date one Halas hired a buggy from defendant, and, when the same was returned, the son committed an assault and battery upon plaintiff, a companion of Halas, with a club; and that defendant was then and there present aiding and abetting to his damage, etc. After answer filed in effect of a general denial there was trial to a jury and judgment for plaintiff for $2,939, and defendant brings the case here.

It is contended that there is no evidence reasonably tending to prove that defendant aided and abetted by telling his son to strike plaintiff, and hence the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence. The evidence discloses that defendant and his son, Walter, were, on that day, keeping a livery stable in Oklahoma City; that on said date the plaintiff and one Halas, who had been fellow students at the university of Prague, and who were Bohemians, with a very imperfect knowledge of the English language, went to the stable where Halas hired a horse and buggy from defendant paying $2 in full therefor, and drove to the country. On their return to the stable they drove in, and Halas, who was a surveyor, got out and took his tripod, photograph machine, and field glasses from the buggy. As he did so, Walter Perrine stepped up and said, "Give me a dollar more." Halas asked him why, whereupon young Perrine got mad and grabbed his tripod and called for defendant, who came out and laid hold of the machine, which Halas had in his hand, whereupon the latter called, in Bohemian, to plaintiff, who was on the sidewalk in front of the stable, to come and explain to him what they wanted; that, as he joined them, defendant, who had taken the machine away from Halas, said to his son, "God damn, God damn, get him," whereupon his son, who had a club in his hand, struck plaintiff a savage blow with it over the head, cutting it frightfully, causing him to bleed profusely, and the permanent loss of an eye. While there is no evidence that defendant struck the plaintiff with a club, the foregoing was abundant evidence tending to prove that he incited and encouraged his son to the commission of the violence complained of. That being true, whether ...