Remington v. Geiszler

• Decision Date: 27 April 1915
• Citation: 152 N.W. 661,30 N.D. 346
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

152 N.W. 661

30 N.D. 346

H. P. REMINGTON v. JOHN GEISZLER

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 27, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County on change of venue from McIntosh County, Allen, J.

A new trial granted.

G. M Gannon and Purcell, Divet & Perkins, for appellant.

It is the duty of the court to charge on all material points whether requested so to do or not. He shall instruct upon the whole law of the case--not upon a part only. Rev. Codes 1905 § 7021; Moline Plow Co. v. Gilbert, 3 Dakota 239, 15 N.W. 1; Carr v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M R. Co., 16 N.D. 217, 112 N.W. 972; Landis v Fyles, 18 N.D. 587, 120 N.W. 566; Forzen v. Hurd, 20 N.D. 42, 126 N.W. 224; State ex rel. Pepple v. Banik, 21 N.D. 425, 131 N.W. 262; Zilke v. Johnson, 22 N.D. 83, 132 N.W. 640, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1005; Putnam v. Prouty, 24 N.D. 517, 140 N.W. 93; Capital City Brick & Pipe Co. v. Des Moines, 136 Iowa 243, 113 N.W. 839; Hume v. Des Moines, 146 Iowa 624, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 126, 125 N.W. 849, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 904; Owen v. Owen, 22 Iowa 270; Barton v. Gray, 57 Mich. 622, 24 N.W. 638.

The giving of an erroneous instruction raises an immediate presumption of prejudice which calls for the reversal of the case. McKay v. Leonard, 17 Iowa 569; Hook v. Craghead, 35 Mo. 380; Freeman v. Rankins, 21 Me. 446; Hayne, New Trials, § 287; Rosenbaum Bros. & Co. v. Hayes, 5 N.D. 481, 67 N.W. 951; McPherrin v. Jones, 5 N.D. 261, 65 N.W. 685.

The failure of the court to instruct the jury concerning the defense of justification by proving the truth of the charge, in a slander case, is reversible error. Burnham v. Stone, 101 Cal. 164, 35 P. 627; Relf v. Rapp, 3 Watts & S. 21, 37 Am. Dec. 528; Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 123 Minn. 17, L.R.A. 1915B, 1179, 142 N.W. 930, 1136; Greengard v. Burton, 88 Minn. 252, 92 N.W. 931; Forzen v. Hurd, 20 N.D. 54, 126 N.W. 224; Putnam v. Prouty, 24 N.D. 517, 140 N.W. 93; Troy Min. Co. v. Thomas, 15 S.D. 238, 88 N.W. 106; Crow v. Burgin, Miss. , 38 So. 625; Memphis Street R. Co. v. Newman, 108 Tenn. 666, 69 S.W. 269; Souey v. State, 13 Lea, 472; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Egerton, 98 Tenn. 541, 41 S.W. 1035; Wooten v. State, 99 Tenn. 189, 41 S.W. 813; International G. N. R. Co. v. Williams, Tex. Civ. App. , 129 S.W. 847; Bangle v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. Tex. Civ. App. , 140 S.W. 374; Murphy v. Connecticut Co., 84 Conn. 711, 81 A. 961.

Each party is entitled to an instruction upon his theory of the case, if it is supported by any evidence. Waniorek v. United R. Co., 17 Cal.App. 121, 118 P. 947; Julius Winter, Jr. & Co. v. Forrest, 145 Ky. 581, 140 S.W. 1005; Barton v. Gray, 57 Mich. 622, 24 N.W. 638; Whittaker v. McQueen, 128 Ky. 260, 108 S.W. 236; Duncan v. Brown, 15 B. Mon. 186; Bisbey v. Shaw, 12 N.Y. 67; Hart v. Sun Printing & Pub. Asso. 79 Hun, 358, 29 N.Y.S. 434; Republican Pub. Co. v. Miner, 12 Colo. 77, 20 P. 345.

An instruction upon a legal proposition not involved in the case is erroneous. Welter v. Leistikow, 9 N.D. 283, 83 N.W. 9; Bertelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 5 Dakota 313, 40 N.W. 531, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 269; Chisholm v. Keyfauver, 110 Cal. 102, 42 P. 424; Frederick v. Kinzer, 17 Neb. 366, 22 N.W. 770; Summerlot v. Hamilton, 121 Ind. 87, 22 N.E. 973; Hickman v. Link, 116 Mo. 123, 22 S.W. 472; Boyce v. Aubuchon, 34 Mo.App. 315; Knudson v. Laurent, 159 Iowa 189, 140 N.W. 392; O'Neil v. Cardina, 159 Iowa 78, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1175, 140 N.W. 196; Larson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 31 S.D. 512, 141 N.W. 353; Haight v. Vallet, 89 Cal. 245, 23 Am. St. Rep. 465, 26 P. 897; Sargent v. Linden Min. Co., 55 Cal. 204, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 207; Baltimore Elevator Co. v. Neal. 65 Md. 438, 5 A. 338; Waddingham v. Hulett, 92 Mo. 528, 5 S.W. 27; Scott v. Clayton, 54 Wis. 499, 11 N.W. 595; Abbott, Trial Brief, Civil, 676 note 1, and cases cited; Iverson v. Look, 32 S.D. 321, 143 N.W. 332; Blair v. Groton, 13 S.D. 211, 83 N.W. 48; Bowen v. Epperson, 136 Mo.App. 571, 118 S.W. 528; Jones v. Matthieson, 2 Dakota 523, 11 N.W. 109.

The giving of a correct charge as to part of a case will not overcome the reiteration of an erroneous charge as to some other part of the case. Rosenbaum Bros. & Co. v. Hayes, 5 N.D. 481, 67 N.W. 951; Lindblom v. Sonstelie, 10 N.D. 145, 86 N.W. 357; Marshall v. Heller, 55 Wis. 392, 13 N.W. 236.

A communication made in good faith to a prosecuting officer, concerning the commission of a crime, is privileged. Eames v. Whittaker, 123 Mass. 342; Klinck v. Colby, 46 N.Y. 427, 7 Am. Rep. 360; Dale v. Harris, 109 Mass. 193; Chapman v. Battle, 124 Ga. 574, 52 S.E. 812; Craig v. Burris, 4 Penn. (Del.) 156, 55 A. 353.

If the court does not properly instruct the jury as to the law on the subject of the impeachment of witnesses, it is reversible error. McPherrin v. Jones, 5 N.D. 261, 65 N.W. 685; First Nat. Bank v. Minneapolis & N. Elevator Co., 11 N.D. 280, 91 N.W. 436; State v. Johnson, 14 N.D. 288, 103 N.W. 565; McPherrin v. Jones, 5 N.D. 261, 65 N.W. 685; State v. Campbell, 7 N.D. 58, 72 N.W. 935.

An instruction that greater weight should be given to the testimony of a witness whose information is superior, is reversible. It attempts a comparison of the witnesses, and only tends to confuse the jury as to what is meant, or what is required of them. Winklebleck v. Winklebleck, 160 Ind. 570, 67 N.E. 451; Jones v. Casler, 139 Ind. 382, 47 Am. St. Rep. 274, 38 N.E. 812; Muncie, H. & Ft. W. R. Co. v. Ladd, 37 Ind.App. 90, 76 N.E. 790; Hudson v. Best, 104 Ga. 131, 30 S.E. 688; Southern Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hudson, 113 Ga. 434, 38 S.E. 964; Frizell v. Cole, 42 Ill. 362.

Trial courts should not merely read or substantially read the pleadings to the jury, but should explain the real issues raised by the pleadings and covered by the evidence. The jury should be told the meaning of the different pleadings and allegations; they should, by their instructions, simplify rather than involve the issues. Swanson v. Allen, 108 Iowa 419, 79 N.W. 132; Gorman v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 78 Iowa 518, 43 N.W. 330; Robinson v. Berkey, 100 Iowa 136, 62 Am. St. Rep. 549, 69 N.W. 434; Black v. Miller, 158 Iowa 293, 138 N.W. 535; Stevens v. Maxwell, 65 Kan. 835, 70 P. 873; 11 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 154; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Eagan, 64 Kan. 421, 67 P. 887, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. 418; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Dalton, 66 Kan. 799, 72 P. 209; 38 Cyc. 1608, and cases cited; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 72 Ohio St. 586, 74 N.E. 1071, 18 Am. Neg. Rep. 590; Murray v. Burd, 65 Neb. 427, 91 N.W. 278.

Evidence that plaintiff was damaged by causes other than the publications made by the defendant is admissible. Consolidated Traction Co. v. Mullin, 63 N.J.L. 22, 42 A. 764; Yaeger v. Southern California R. Co., 5 Cal. Unrep. 870, 51 P. 190; Wier v. Allen, 51 N.H. 177.

The defendant is only liable for the damage which he has occasioned; the damage must be the result of the injury of which complaint is made,--the legal, proximate consequences of the words spoken. 2 Saunders, Pl. & Ev. 927; 2 Greenl. Ev. §§ 254, 420; King v. Watts, 8 Car. & P. 614; Dixon v. Smith, 5 Hurlst. & N. 450, 29 L. J. Exch. N. S. 125; Olmsted v. Brown, 12 Barb. 657; Vickars v. Wilcocks, 8 East, 1, 9 Revised Rep. 361; 2 Starkie, Ev. 873; Miller v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co., 89 S.C. 530, 72 S.E. 397, 27 Ann. Cas. 106; Newell, Defamation, Slander, p. 899; Fowler v. Fowler, 113 Mich. 575, 71 N.W. 1084, and cases cited; 8 Enc. Ev. 270, and cases cited; 25 Cyc. 418; Comstock v. Smith, 20 Mich. 348.

Statements made by plaintiff that slanders did not hurt him are admissible. McKelvey, Ev. 124; 1 Enc. Ev. 504, and cases cited; 16 Cyc. 978, et seq. and cases cited; 2 Sedgw. Damages, § 450; Samuels v. Evening Mail Asso. 6 Hun, 5; Porter v. Henderson, 11 Mich. 20, 82 Am. Dec. 59; Richardson v. Barker, 7 Ind. 567; Evans v. Smith, 5 T. B. Mon. 363, 17 Am. Dec. 74; Hobart v. Plymouth County, 100 Mass. 159.

Conversations between plaintiff and defendant, overheard by witnesses, are admissible. State v. Kent (State v. Pancoast) 5 N.D. 547, 35 L.R.A. 518, 67 N.W. 1052; McKelvey, Ev. 343, et seq.; 16 Cyc. 1148, et seq.; People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277, 1 Am. St. Rep. 501, 27 N.W. 548; Beal v. Nichols, 2 Gray, 264; 2 Phillipps, Ev. p. 898; 16 Cyc. 1148, et seq.

T. A. Curtis and Forbes & Lounsbury, for respondent.

Counsel cannot sit quietly by and listen to the charge of the trial court to the jury, and make no request for instructions upon any question, and then come into the supreme court and complain that the court failed to instruct as it should have done. Carr v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co., 16 N.D. 217, 112 N.W. 972; Landis v. Fyles, 18 N.D. 587, 120 N.W. 566; State ex rel. Pepple v. Banik, 21 N.D. 425, 131 N.W. 262; Zilke v. Johnson, 22 N.D. 83, 132 N.W. 640, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1005; 11 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 217, et seq.

It is proper to give an instruction in the language of our Code. This is especially true where no explicit instruction is requested. Bertelson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 5 Dakota 313, 40 N.W. 531, 11 Am. Neg. Cas. 269; State v. Campbell, 7 N.D. 58, 72 N.W. 935.

If instructions as a whole are correct in law, they are sufficient. They cannot be broken up or singled out. Boyle v. State, 105 Ind. 469, 55 Am. Rep. 218, 5 N.E. 203; Hart v. Newton, 48 Mich. 401, 12 N.W. 508; Pennsylvania Co. v. McCormack, 131 Ind. 250, 30 N.E 27; State v. Williams, 70 Iowa 52, 29 N.W. 801; Davis v. Walter, 70 Iowa 465, 30 N.W. 804; 1 Blashfield, Instruction to Juries, pp. 875, 876; McBride v. Wallace, 17 N.D. 495, 117 N.W. 857; Buchanan v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 17 N.D. 343, 116 N.W. 335; Gagnier v. Fargo, 12 N.D. 219, 96 N.W. 841; Sackett, Instruction to Juries, p. 33; United Breweries Co. v. O'Donnell, 221 Ill. 334, 77 N.E. 547; ...