Schuette v. St. Louis Transit Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1904 |
| Citation | 108 Mo. App. 186,83 S.W. 297 |
| Parties | SCHUETTE v. ST. LOUIS TRANSIT CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; H. D. Wood, Judge.
Action by Frank Schuette, Sr., against the St. Louis Transit Company. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
E. E. Wood, for appellant. Boyle, Priest & Lehman, for respondent.
A verdict of the jury in favor of the appellant was set aside, and a new trial granted, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. An appeal was taken from the order granting a new trial.
The action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover for the loss of his minor son's earnings, due to an injury which is charged to have been sustained at the hands of a conductor of one of the defendant's cars. The testimony for the plaintiff was that, without provocation or cause, the conductor threw the boy off the car. For the defendant the testimony was that the boy stepped on the rear of the car, pulled the bell cord, grossly insulted the conductor, and then jumped off. The result of the episode was that the boy's arm was broken. The evidence was exceedingly contradictory; various witnesses testifying in corroboration of the boy's narrative, and others supporting the statements of the conductor. The trial court had, of course, a large discretion in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Appellant's counsel concedes this, but insists the discretion was abused in this instance, as the weight of the evidence was strongly in favor of his client. It is further said the record bears marks of prejudice and passion on the part of the trial judge. No doubt, some asperity was shown by the court in the conduct of the trial, and remarks were made that might well have been spared. But we cannot say the court acted from prejudice or passion, instead of an honest judgment, in granting another trial. It was a case of highly contradictory testimony, and the judge, who heard the witnesses and saw their manner, would necessarily form an opinion as to where the weight of the evidence fell. We see no reason to think the verdict was set aside arbitrarily and from prejudice against the appellant. Hasty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peetz Brothers Liv. & Undk. Co. v. Vahlkamp
...of the action of the trial court in granting a new trial. Bank v. Wood, 124 Mo. 76; Parker v. Cassingham, 130 Mo. 348; Shuette v. Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 186; Van Liew v. Barrett, 144 Mo. 509; Higgins v. Higgins, 343 Mo. 171; Herndon v. Lewis, 175 Mo. 116. Where the jury arbitrarily disre......
-
Reynolds v. Beck
... ... 188 REYNOLDS, Respondent, v. BECK, Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis November 15, 1904 ... Appeal ... from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. D ... ...
-
Wegeschiede v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...81 S. W. 1134; Herndon v. Lewis, 175 Mo. 116, 74 S. W. 976; Farrell v. Transit Co., 103 Mo. App. 454, 78 S. W. 312; Scheutte v. Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 186, 83 S. W. 297. No point is made on the giving or the refusal of the court to give No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed. All c......
-
Kelleher v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
...abused. Loftus v. Railroad, 119 S.W. 942; Kirn v. E. E. Iron Co., 124 S.W. 45; Schuette v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 21; Schuette v. Transit Co., 108 Mo.App. 186; Fitzjohn v. Transit Co., 81 S.W. 908. It axiomatic that the excessiveness of a verdict involves a question of fact and the trial ......