Reutkemeier v. Nolte
Decision Date | 14 February 1917 |
Docket Number | 30256 |
Citation | 161 N.W. 290,179 Iowa 342 |
Parties | FRED REUTKEMEIER, Appellee, v. BEN NOLTE, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Winneshiek District Court.--A. N. HOBSON, Judge.
ACTION for damages, actual and exemplary, by the plaintiff against the defendant for the alleged debauching of his minor daughter. Actual damages for expenses and loss of service are claimed under the provisions of Code Section 3471. The defense was a general denial. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $ 6,500, and the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank Sayre and E. W. Cutting, for appellant.
William S. Hart and Boice & Hook, for appellee.
The facts, as contended by plaintiff, briefly stated, are that in September, 1912, the defendant, a man then 21 years of age, had carnal knowledge of the plaintiff's daughter, Mary, then a child only 14 years of age. In June, 1913, she gave birth to a child, alleged to be the result of such intercourse. The plaintiff was, at the time, a farmer, living upon his own farm. He was a widower, with three daughters and three sons, all living with him at his home. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was quite abundant to sustain the verdict. The appeal is presented here on assignments of error assailing certain rulings in the admission of testimony and certain instructions of the court.
I. The most important and doubtful question raised relates to an alleged privileged communication, the claim of privilege being based on Code Section 4608. Plaintiff's daughter was a member of the Presbyterian church. In the month of March before her child was born, she was asked to appear and did appear before the church session. Such session consisted of the pastor and the three ruling elders. She appears to have confessed her sin, and to have made certain communication to the elders. On the trial of this case, the defendant sought to show what such communication was. It is claimed for the defendant that such communication involved others, as well as himself, and that at least it cast much uncertainty upon the paternity of the child. The plaintiff objected to such line of testimony, both on the ground that it was not binding upon him as substantive testimony, and that, in any event, it was a privileged communication under the provision of the statute. The first objection was clearly good as far as it went. The defendant, however, sought to lay a foundation in the cross-examination of the daughter Mary as a witness for her impeachment, by calling her attention to such alleged communication. Of course, if the communication was not privileged, it was competent, even as against the plaintiff, to offer the same for the purpose of impeachment. On the other hand, if the communication was privileged, it was no more available to the defendant for impeachment purposes than for any other purpose. If it was privileged, then, under the view of the trial court, it would be equally improper to lay a pretended foundation for its introduction as impeaching testimony. The question, therefore, was precipitated in the cross-examination of the witness Mary. The trial court exercised its discretion to stop temporarily the cross-examination, and to permit the parties, in the absence of the jury, to introduce evidence of such facts as were material to be considered, to enable the court to determine whether the communication in question was privileged. It is not free from doubt, upon the record before us, whether the cross-examination of the witness at this point was justified by the state of her testimony at the time. In view of the fact, however, that the attention of both court and counsel appears to have been concentrated upon the question of privilege, as decisive of that line of examination, we are disposed to meet that question as the one of larger merit. Code Section 4608 is as follows:
In applying this section to the case before us, two questions naturally arise:
1. Was the communication a confidential one?
2. Were the recipients of such communication ministers of the Gospel, within the meaning of the statute?
As to the first question, it is apparent that the communication was of such a nature as would usually and naturally be deemed confidential, if for no other reason than that it involved a confession of sin to a spiritual adviser. We feel no hesitancy in holding the affirmative on this question. The second question presents greater difficulty. What is a "minister of the Gospel," within the meaning of this statute? The law as such sets up no standard or criterion. That question is left wholly to the recognition of the "denomination." The word "minister," which, in its original sense, meant a mere servant, has grown in many directions, and into much dignity. Few English words have a more varied meaning. In the religious world, it is often, if not generally, used as referring to a pastor of the church and a preacher of the Gospel. This meaning, however, is not applicable to all Christian denominations. Some of them have no pastors and recognize no one as a minister in that sense, and yet all denominations recognize the spiritual authority of the church, and provide a source of spiritual advice and discipline. The record herein contains a copy of the "Confession of Faith" of the Presbyterian church, as well as other standard booklets setting forth the doctrine and polity of that denomination. The following excerpts therefrom will sufficiently indicate the same:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lawson v. Fordyce
... ... payment alone is sufficient to carry the question of ... reasonableness to the jury. See Reutkemeier v. Nolte, 179 ... Iowa 342, 352-354, 161 N.W. 290, L.R.A. 1917D, 273; Remington ... v. Machamer, 192 Iowa 1098, 1103, 186 N.W. 32; Lampman v ... ...
- Reutkemeier v. Nolte
-
Brause v. Brause
...prejudice on the part of the jury." See, also, note to International Harv. Co. v. Iowa Hdw. Co., 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 282. In the Reutkemeier case, supra, recovery was for $ 6,500 actual and exemplary damages for an assault and the debauchery of plaintiff's daughter. Though we said the recov......
-
Brause v. Brause
...verdict is large, we will not interfere unless the verdict appears clearly to be the result of passion and prejudice. Reutkemeier v. Nolte, 179 Iowa, 342-352, 161 N. W. 290, L. R. A. 1917D, 273, and cases; Albrook v. Telegraph Co., 169 Iowa, 412-429, 150 N. W. 75. See, also, 4 Corpus Juris,......