Reed v. New
| Decision Date | 05 November 1886 |
| Citation | 12 P. 139,35 Kan. 727 |
| Parties | RICHARD W. REED v. THOMAS G. NEW |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Dickinson District Court.
ACTION brought by New against Reed, to recover $ 1,373.50, the alleged value of certain personal property. Trial at the January Term, 1885, and judgment for plaintiff for $ 1,250. The defendant brings the case to this court. The opinion sufficiently states the facts.
Judgment affirmed.
John H Mahan, for plaintiff in error.
W. S Stambaugh, and J. R. Burton, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought by Thomas G. New against Richard W. Reed, to recover $ 1,373.50, the alleged value of certain personal property, consisting of horses, buggies, harness, etc., used in carrying on and conducting a livery stable, which property it is alleged the defendant intentionally burned and destroyed by fire. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before the court and a jury, and the jury rendered a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $ 1,250, and the court rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant brings the case to this court, and asks for a reversal of the foregoing judgment.
The right of the plaintiff to recover depends solely upon the question whether it was the defendant, or some one else, who set the fire to the livery stable which consumed it and the plaintiff's property; and the only proof that tended to show that it was the defendant who started the fire, was purely circumstantial evidence. There was no direct testimony introduced on the trial tending to show that the defendant started the fire, while his own testimony was that he did not. It appeared at the trial that for some time prior to the burning of the livery stable, and up to within five days of that time, the defendant carried on and operated the livery stable himself; that he then owned the entire stock and materials necessary for that purpose, and that he also owned two sheds attached to the livery stable, but that he did not own the stable itself, but only had a lease thereof. It also appeared that prior to the fire, the defendant's lease expired, and that the plaintiff leased the stable from the owners thereof, and had taken possession of it. The defendant, however, owned the following property, which still remained in the stable: Six horses, four double sets and four single sets of harness, four saddles, and some other articles; and he also owned the two sheds above mentioned. All this property was consumed by the fire, except three of the horses. The plaintiff also had a large amount of property in the stable, all of which was consumed by the fire, except one horse. The plaintiff's property destroyed by the fire was found by the jury to be worth $ 1,250. The value of the defendant's property destroyed by the fire was about $ 650. The plaintiff prosecuted this action upon the theory that the defendant set the fire to the stable for the following reasons: For revenge against the owners of the stable for renting it to the plaintiff, and for revenge against the plaintiff because he procured a lease thereof and deprived the defendant of the use of the same; and the plaintiff also introduced evidence for the purpose of showing that the defendant had his own property insured for more than it was worth, and therefore that he would not lose anything by having it destroyed by fire. The defendant objected and excepted to the introduction of this evidence and whether the introduction of such evidence constitutes material error or not is the principal question involved in this case, and the first one which we shall consider. It was clearly proper for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had an insurance on his property, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial