Ratteree v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 31 October 1887 |
| Citation | 79 Ga. 574 |
| Parties | Ratteree. vs. Chapman. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Evidence. Assault and Battery. Adultery. Witness. Allegata and Probata. Pleadings. Justification. Dam-ages. Interest. Before Judge Van Epps. City Court of Atlanta. December Term, 1886.
The plaintiff's declaration alleged that she went to the house of a tenant of defendant, where she spent a night; that, on the next morning, while sitting before the fire there, the defendant came in, " and after abusing and cursing her for everything he could think of, did maliciously.. commit an assault and battery upon her; that he knocked her over the head with a stick which he held in his hand; that he choked her severely and took her by the hair, pulling and dragging her about, and in doing so pulled from her head a large quantity of her hair, and besides, tore her dress and clothing; that from said lick on her head she has suffered and is still suffering great pain; that the severe choking and hair pulling caused her much pain; that from said injuries she has been totally incapacitated ever since to perform any work or labor of any kind; that her services are worth.. $25 per month; and that in consequence of her inability to earn a living, caused by the injuries aforesaid, she has been a burden upon her friends and dependent entirely upon their charity for the necessaries to sustain life." Wherefore, she alleged, the defendant had damaged her $5,000.
On the trial, the evidence was conflicting, the plaintiff giving, in detail, an account of the occurrence that would fully support her allegations, and introducing two witnessses who testified as to the injuries she sustained. The defendant and a number of other witnesses gave a materially different account, tending to show that he went to the house, told the plaintiff he was surprised to see her there after having sworn against him as she did (in a former case), ordered her to leave the premises as soon as the rain, which was falling, ceased, and then started to go out; that as he reached the door, the plaintiff jumped after him, spoke to him with a foul epithet and tried to push him out; that he caught by the door-facing, turned and put hishand against her to push her back, when she caught him by the hair and beard, and a struggle ensued; and that he did net pull her hair, choke her, tear her clothing nor hit her with any stick. The remainder of the voluminous and contradictory evidence it is unnecessary to set out here.
The jury found for the plaintiff $700. The defendant moved for a new trial on the following among other grounds:
(1) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
(2) Because the court refused to allow General Alexander, a witness for defendant, about fourteen years old, to answer the question, " State whether or not you have seen other men with your mother." Counsel for defendant stated that he desired to show, by this witness, that the plaintiff was a low and vile woman. The court excluded the evidence because " a child of tender years, in a suit in favor of its own mother against its putative father, ought not, on grounds of public policy, to be admitted to testify to facts degrading the mother, as testimony by the child could not, in the nature of the case, go back of the act of the father which degraded the mother."
(3) Because the court erred in stating, in the opening of his charge to the jury, that " she says... that her injuries are permanent."—The objection was that the declaration contained no such allegation.
(4), (5) (These grounds are fully set out in the third and fourth divisions of the decision.)
(6) Because of certain instructions of the court on the subject of damages for permanent injuries, —the objection being the same as in the third ground. The court certified, referring to the brief of evidence, that much evidence as to permanency of injuries was introduced, without objection.
(7) (Sufficiently stated in the sixth head of decision.)
The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
N. J. & T. A. Hammond, for plaintiff in error.
Gartrell & Lanson, for defendant.
Sarah A. Chapman brought suit against Alexander Ratteree for damages alleged to have been sustained by her, for an assault and battery committed on her person by the defendant, Ratteree. On the trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for damages. The defendant made a motion for new trial on the several grounds contained therein. The court overruled the motion upon each and all the grounds, and the defendant excepted to this judgment overruling the motion, and assigned the same as error.
1. We see no error in excluding the answer of the witness, Alexander, to the question asked him about his mother. The counsel admitted, in answer to the court, that it was for the purpose of proving her to be " a low and vile woman." If that was the purpose, it could not be done by proof of specific acts of adultery, but by proof of general bad character. We are not satisfied that the ground the judge put the exclusion of it on is not good also. The witness was a youth of tender years, not perhaps knowing, or capable of properly considering, the effect of an affirmative answer to the question. The judge may have been right in protecting him. We put our decision, however, on the other ground. See, on this subject, 60 Ga. 509.
2. We see no error in the third ground of the motion. While the declaration does not charge in words that the injuries were permanent, yet from the allegation therein, it might properly be so construed. Evidence as to the injuries being permanent was admitted without objection. Savannah, Florida & Western Railway vs. Barber, 71 Ga. 648; Howard, vs. Barrett, 52 Id. 15; Field vs. Martin, 49 Id. 268. As the case will be sent back for a new trial, this allegation can be made by amendment, if counsel so desire.
3. Error is assigned in the fourth ground, because the court charged the jury as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial