Rome R. Co v. Barnett
| Decision Date | 26 March 1894 |
| Citation | 94 Ga. 446,20 S.E. 355 |
| Parties | ROME R. CO. v. BARNETT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Civil Action for Homicide — Decree of Proof —Continuance—Absence of Witness—Credibility of Witness—Review on Appeal.
1. The denial of a continuance where the sole ground of the application was the absence of a nonresident witness, whose testimony might have been taken by interrogatories, but was not, the movant having relied upon his promise to attend court, and showing as an excuse for his nonattendance that he was hindered by providential cause, was certainly no abuse of discretion.
2. It is no cause for a new trial that counsel read reported cases to the court, and commented upon them, in arguing a question of law to the court, whether this was done in the hearing of the jury or not.
3. In a civil action against the master for damages for a willful or reckless homicide committed by his servant, it is not requisite that any element of the case should be established with such certainty as to leave no reasonable doubt upon the minds of the jury.
4. The facts in evidence did not render it necessary to charge the jury that anything which would excuse the servant criminally would excuse the master civilly.
5. Unless a particular witness, in behalf of the plaintiff below, testified truly, the verdict would be an outrage upon justice. The credibility of this witness was attacked by every means known to the law, including contradiction by another witness, evidence of bad character, and his own previous affidavit to a written report of the facts, at variance with his testimony at the trial. Yet the jury, if not themselves corrupt, must have believed him, for they found for the plaintiff; and, the court be low having approved their finding, this court is constrained by law to acquiesce. Relatively to the revising powers of this court, the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of witnesses. The law provides for setting aside judgments obtained by perjury after conviction of that offense.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Floyd county; W. M. Henry, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Mattie Barnett against the Rome Railroad Company for damages. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
The following is the official report:
After the decision in this case, as reported in 89 Ga. 718, 15 S. E. 639, another trial was had, resulting in a verdict for $5,000 in the plaintiff's favor. So much of the declaration as claimed punitive damages was stricken from the declaration. The defendant moved for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and was excessive, and on other grounds to be stated. The motion was overruled, and exception was taken. The special grounds are as follows: Refusal to continue the case on the following statement, made in his place by defendant's counsel: Ashley, a material witness for the defendant, was absent without permission, direct or indirect, of defendant, its agents or attorneys. Counsel expected to be able to get the testimony of the witness at the next term. The application for continuance was not made for the purpose of delay, but to enable defendant to get the testimony of the absent witness. Ashley was an employe of the Central Railroad Company, running as an engineer from Griffin to Chattanooga and...
To continue reading
Request your trial