Redfield v. Redfield
| Decision Date | 09 October 1888 |
| Citation | 75 Iowa 435,39 N.W. 688 |
| Parties | REDFIELD v. REDFIELD. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Page county; A. B. THORNELL, Judge.
Plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries alleged to have been inflicted by defendant. The cause was tried to a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of plaintiff. Judgment was rendered on the verdict, and defendant appeals.James McCabe and W. P. Ferguson, for appellant.
C. S. Keenan, for appellee.
The petition of plaintiff states “that on the 13th day of February, 1887, while in the discharge of her household duties, she was willfully and maliciously assaulted by the defendant, by him striking and choking her, and pushing her through the door of her dwelling, and off the porch--several feet high--onto the ground, from which she was unable to rise for a short time; that the night was cold and wet, and she was compelled to seek shelter in a neighboring house, being at the time in poor health, which fact was known by defendant at the time; that she has been greatly injured in her person and health, humiliated and distressed in mind, and suffered great mental agony and bodily pain; for which she claims damages in the sum of five thousand dollars.” The defendant admits that he forcibly ejected plaintiff from the dwelling in which she was then staying, but avers that he was the owner and in the rightful possession of the same; that plaintiff and her husband were at that time in his employ; but that, having failed to perform their duties properly, he discharged them, and notified plaintiff to leave the premises, which she refused to do, but asserted a right to remain; that he thereupon ejected her, using no more than necessary force in so doing. He denies the allegations of the petition not admitted. The evidence seems to show that at the time in question defendant resided with his family in Shenandoah, but owned a farm a few miles from the town, where he fed and kept stock. In December, 1886, the plaintiff and her husband, who is a son of defendant, moved onto the farm, and commenced attending to the stock. At the time in question some controversy arose as to the manner in which the chores were done, some abusive language was used, and the plaintiff was forcibly ejected from the house.
1. This action was commenced on the 23d day of March, 1887, and tried on the 4th day of November of the same year. Appellant complains of the ruling of the court in permitting plaintiff to answer the questions, “Are you able to work now?” and “For what reason?” The answer to the first question was: And to the second: “My back has been so lame I could not work.” The court charged the jury not to consider the evidence of plaintiff touching the condition of her health, and the pain endured by her after the commencement of the suit. This withdrew from the jury so much of these answers as was responsive to the questions, and the latter only were objected to. We conclude that if there was error in the ruling it was cured by the charge. The plaintiff was permitted to testify, without objection, that the injury resulted in laming her back and arm so that she had not been able to work, and was cross-examined at considerable length as to her physical condition, both before and after she received the injuries in controversy. We do not think appellant has any reason to complain of the rulings in question, in view of the previous examination of the witness, and the charge of the court.
2. The plaintiff stated, on cross-examination, that she hurt her back July 4, 1885, and that at that time she was taking medicine, but not for her back. Defendant then asked her “what complaint was the medicine for?” and now complains that an objection to the question was sustained. We think the ruling was correct. The time to which the question referred was more than a year and a half before defendant committed the acts of which she complains, and no connection between a disease which existed in July, 1885, and her physical condition in February, 1887, is shown or alleged.
3. Appellant complains of the ruling of the court in sustaining an objection to a question asked of defendant as follows: “What right did plaintiff or husband have there?” It is true an objection to this question was sustained, but defendant afterwards stated the terms under which these persons were in the house, and no prejudice could have resulted from the ruling.
4. The court below refused to allow defendant to state how the chores were done in his absence. We think this ruling was correct. It was immaterial to the issues of the case whether the chores were properly done or...
To continue reading
Request your trial