Robertson v. Conklin

• Decision Date: 14 September 1910
• Citation: 68 S.E. 899,153 N.C. 1
• Parties: ROBERTSON v. CONKLIN et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

68 S.E. 899

153 N.C. 1

ROBERTSON

v.CONKLIN et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 14, 1910.

1. Damages (§ 171^*) — Malicious Torts — Punitive Damages—Evidence.

In cases of malicious torts, where punitive damages may be awarded, evidence of plaintiff's pecuniary condition is inadmissible for the purpose of securing punitive damages, and is admissible only on the ground that his pecuniary circumstances are directly involved in estimating the actual damages.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent Dig. § 498; Dec. Dig. § 171.*]

2. Malicious Prosecution (§ 62*)—Damages —Evidence—Admissibility,

Where, in an action for malicious prosecution based on defendant procuring the arrest of plaintiff for larceny, the evidence showed that plaintiff did not suffer because of his poverty, and that he was not discharged from defendant's service, but was transferred to other work without a decrease in compensation, and that he continued in the service until after the commencement of the action when he was discharged, evidence that plaintiff had no property and was dependent on his labor for a living was inadmissible on the question of actual or punitive damages.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Malicious Prosecution, Cent. Dig. § 148; Dec. Dig. § 62.*]

3. Malicious Prosecution (§ 72*)—Actual and Punitive Damages — Submission of Issue to Jury.

The court in an action for malicious prosecution could submit only one issue as to damages, and under it the court should charge as to actual damages, and also on punitive damages, and when the latter may or may not be allowed.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Malicious Prosecution, Dec. Dig. § 72.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Washington County; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by Samuel Robertson against E. J. Conklin and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial granted.

There were three distinct counts or causes of action set out in the complaint—malicious prosecution, abuse of process with false arrest, and slander. The following issues were submitted:

"(1) Did the defendant wrongfully and without probable cause cause the warrant for searching the plaintiff to be issued? A, Yes.

"(2) If so, was the defendant actuated by malice in causing such warrant to issue? A. Yes.

"(3) Did the defendant wrongfully and without probable cause cause the plaintiff to be arrested? A. Yes.

"(4) If so, was the defendant actuated by malice in causing such arrest? A. Yes.

"(5) Did the defendant wrongfully and maliciously charge the plaintiff with the larceny of the money? A. Yes.

"(6) What actual damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? A. $1,000.

"(7) What punitive damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? A. None."

By consent of plaintiff the court reduced the verdict to $500, and gave judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appealed.

Asa O. Gaylord, for appellants.

Wm. M. Bond and Wm. M. Bond, Jr., for appellee.

BROWN, J. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff was employed by the Plymouth Lumber Company as night watchman at the time of the alleged wrongs committed against him, and that E. J. Conklin was secretary and treasurer of the lumber company; that on a Saturday night $40.80 was left in a desk drawer in the office of the lumber company in the mill grounds, which the plaintiff was employed to watch; that the money was taken, and defendants charged plaintiff with the larceny, and also had him arrested under a search warrant, or without warrant, and had his home searched by an officer.

Over the objection of the defendants plaintiff was permitted to testify that he had no property at the time, and was entirely dependent on "his two hands" for a living. The rule that in cases of malicious torts, where punitive damages are claimed and may be awarded, evidence of the defendant's pecuniary condition is admissible, is very generally recognized by the authorities, but evidence of the pecuniary condition of the plaintiff as a general rule is inadmissible. It is admitted only on the ground that the pecuniary circumstances of the plaintiff are directly involved in estimating...