Standridge v. Martin

• Citation: 203 Ala. 486,84 So. 266
• Decision Date: 27 November 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 847
• Parties: STANDRIDGE v. MARTIN.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

84 So. 266

203 Ala. 486

STANDRIDGE v. MARTIN.

6 Div. 847

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 27, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Charles W. Ferguson Judge.

Action by J.S. Standridge against T.W. Martin for damages for an automobile accident. There was judgment for plaintiff which on motion of the defendant was set aside, and plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

After setting out the minute entries relating to the motion for a new trial, the bill of exception recites:

Said motion for a new trial coming on for hearing on, to wit *** the following evidence and exhibits was submitted by the defendant in support of said motion. (Here follows the testimony of W.H. Sadler and the affidavit of A.W. Brasselton and an exhibit thereto showing memoranda made by some of the jury in the process of arriving at a verdict.) Then follows a recital that the plaintiff here introduced in evidence the affidavits of A. Hirsch, J.T. McCarty, and Mack Singleton jurors in the case, and these affidavits are set out. Then follows this recital: The court after hearing and considering said motion for a new trial, and the evidence and affidavits in support thereof, and the affidavit introduced as opposed to the granting of said motion did on, to wit, *** grant said motion, etc.

The bill contains no express recital that it contained all the evidence before the court on the motion.

Allen Bell & Sadler, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Cabaniss & Cabaniss, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

Although the objectionable argument of plaintiff's counsel was excluded from the consideration of the jury by the trial judge, with an appropriate instruction to disregard it, we are nevertheless of the opinion that it falls within that class of argumentative statements which are grossly improper and highly prejudicial, and whose evil influence and effect cannot be eradicated from the minds of the jury by any admonition from the trial judge. B.R.L. & P. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 So. 80, Ann.Cas. 1916A, 543; B.R.L. & P. Co. v. Drennen, 175 Ala. 338, 57 So. 876, Ann.Cas.1914C, 1037; Florence, etc., Co. v. Field, 104 Ala. 471, 480, 16 So. 538, 540.

In a later case this court declared that the trial court committed "highly prejudicial error in the allowance of testimony to show, or tending to show, that defendant was indemnified in the premises, in any degree or fashion, by an insurance company," and that "the...