Sturgeon v. Sturgeon
| Decision Date | 17 March 1892 |
| Docket Number | 427 |
| Citation | 30 N.E. 805,4 Ind.App. 232 |
| Parties | STURGEON v. STURGEON |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Noble Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
S. M Hench and R. P. Barr, for appellant.
T. R Marshall, W. F. McNagney and L. W. Wrigley, for appellee.
The first question presented arises upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. The action was by the appellee against the appellant for damages for an assault and battery, and the appellee recovered a judgment. The evidence tends to prove that the appellant, who is the father-in-law of the appellee, without sufficient provocation or excuse, assaulted the appellee and choked her and caused her to fall in a hole in the ground, thereby bruising and injuring her. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in returning a verdict for the appellee.
It is claimed the amount of the verdict is excessive. The amount recovered was $ 1,000. We do not regard the damages assessed as "grossly and outrageously excessive." Unless they are so, and induce the belief that they were the result of prejudice, partiality or corruption, a new trial will not be granted. Ohio, etc., R. W. Co. v. Judy, 120 Ind. 397, 22 N.E. 252; Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Talbot, 131 Ind. 221, 29 N.E. 1134.
Complaint is made of the giving of instructions Nos. 1 and 2 by the court of its own motion. The alleged defect in the first of these consists in the fact that in its statement of the case to the jury, in said instruction, the court set out and read to the jury the complaint. There was no error in this. The court had a right to direct the minds of the jurors to the issues in the case. The jury was properly informed that the burden was upon the appellee to prove the material averments in the complaint. We think this was proper.
In the second instruction the court told the jury that if they found for the plaintiff upon the evidence the amount of damages to which she was entitled was not fixed by the law with any exactness, and that it was left largely to the discretion of the jury, "who are, however, to consider all the circumstances of the case bearing upon that subject." The court then proceeded to state that if the jury found for the plaintiff the damages would not necessarily be limited to the actual loss in money or time or expense, which she had incurred, but the law also authorized the giving of full compensation for the mental pain, anguish, shame and humiliation she may have suffered as the direct result of the injuries inflicted upon her by the appellant, if any is shown by the evidence, but that they could not award to the plaintiff any exemplary damages by way of punishment to the appellant and that the damages must be limited to actual compensation for injuries to her mind and body, etc.
That portion of the instruction which we have above set out in quotation marks is the particular part to which appellant objects. He claims the jury must consider not only "all the circumstances," but all the evidence of the case, and hence the instruction was too narrow. We think, however, that the instruction, when taken in connection with the other instructions given, is not inaccurate. The jury were told in another instruction that the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove her case "by a preponderance of all the evidence" before she could recover a verdict in the case. We do not think there is any substantial merit in this objection.
It is next insisted that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions requested by the appellant. Upon examination, however, we find that such portions as are abstractly correct are contained in substance in other instructions given by the court.
Appellant offered to prove his general good reputation in the neighborhood where he lived as a peaceable and humane man. The evidence was rejected, and it is argued that this was error. We do not think so, however. The question has already been decided adversely to the appellant's contention. Elliott v. Russell, 92 Ind. 526; Gebhart v. Burkett, 57 Ind. 378.
The appellee proved by her father that on the next morning after the injury he saw her at home, and was looking at her injuries, and when he moved her head to see what marks of violence were on her neck, she said: "Pa, don't...
To continue reading
Request your trial