Roach v. Caldbeck
| Decision Date | 11 July 1892 |
| Citation | 24 A. 989,64 Vt. 593 |
| Parties | PATRICK A. ROACH v. MATTHEW J. CALDBECK |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
MAY TERM, 1892
Trespass for an assault and battery. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the December term, 1891, Start, J presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepts.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Ide & Quimby and Harry Blodgett, for the defendant.
Present ROSS, Ch. J., TAFT, ROWELL, AND TYLER, JJ.
1. The question, whether there was error in the plaintiff's answer in respect of the defendant's prominence in society, is not shown by the record. It appears in the transcript of the trial, and the transcript is referred to for certain purposes, but not for the purpose of showing that exception. Therefore it is not before us and is not considered.
2. The plaintiff was asked upon cross-examination this question "Mr. Caldbeck took care of you at times when you were sick," and the defendant was asked in his examination in chief, "You have stated you have been acquainted with Mr. Roach for years, were boys together, want to know if you had seen him so that you knew how he looked, how he appears at times when he was coming out of these spells of intoxication?" The plaintiff objected to both questions and the answers were excluded. What the answers would have been, had they been given, is not shown; therefore error does not appear.
3. The Court admitted evidence of the defendant's pecuniary ability, what property he had, its value, and what incumbrances were on the same, as bearing upon the question of actual damages. Such is the construction we give the bill of exceptions. Upon the subject of actual damages the evidence was inadmissible, and in its admission there was error. As the testimony was not admitted upon the subject of exemplary damages, we have no occasion to pass upon that question.
4. The Court committed no error in rejecting the defendant's offer of evidence respecting the controversies of the parties for some months prior to the assault. The ruling of the Court was as favorable to the defendant as the law permitted. The relations of the parties at the time of the assault, was a proper subject of inquiry upon the trial, but the details of their past controversies would afford scant light to aid the jury in determining any of the questions then being solved, and would have brought forth, judging from the offers of evidence, a flood of interminable collateral questions, not in the least germane to the points in issue between the parties.
5. The Court permitted ...
To continue reading
Request your trial