Pierson v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 01 June 1896
• Docket Number: 51
• Citation: 4 Kan.App. 173,45 P. 944
• Parties: ROSEBERRY PIERSON v. ELIZA J. THOMPSON, as Guardian of Corydon C. Thompson
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

45 P. 944

4 Kan.App. 173

ROSEBERRY PIERSON v. ELIZA J. THOMPSON, as Guardian of Corydon C. Thompson

No. 51

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Eastern Division

June 1, 1896

Opinion Filed July 13, 1896.

MEMORANDUM.-- Error from Cherokee district court; J. D McCUE, judge. Action by Eliza J. Thompson, as guardian of Corydon C. Thompson, an insane person, against Roseberry Pierson, to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings the case to this court. Reversed. The opinion herein, filed July 13 1896, states the material facts.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

W. R. Cowley, for plaintiff in error.

E. M. Tracewell, and A. H. Skidmore, for defendant in error.

COLE J. All the Judges concurring.

OPINION

COLE, J.:

C. C. Thompson brought this action in the district court of Cherokee county to recover damages for alleged assault and battery committed upon his person by Roseberry Pierson. After the commencement of the action Thompson was adjudged insane, and the cause was continued in the name of the defendant in error as guardian. Upon the trial, judgment was rendered for $ 1,000 in favor of said guardian, $ 29.35 of which was given by the jury as actual damages, and the balance of the amount as punitive damages. A motion for a new trial was filed, the grounds of which were, that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it was contrary to law, that the damages assessed were excessive and given under the influence of passion and prejudice, error occurring at the trial prejudicial to the defendant, and misconduct of the prevailing parties. Upon the hearing of said motion the district court sustained the same, upon the payment of certain costs within 50 days, and also ordered that if said costs were not paid the motion for a new trial should be overruled. Pierson refused to pay the costs taxed against him, and brings the case here for review.

Several errors are complained of in this case, but we do not deem it necessary to consider any but the ruling of the court upon the motion for a new trial, as in our opinion there must be another trial of this case, and the other errors complained of will probably not occur again.

It is a well-settled rule that the verdict of a jury must meet with the approval of the trial court, and that unless it is so approved by the court a new trial should be granted. (K C. W. & N. W....