Suggs v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1853
• Docket Number: No. 75.,75.
• Citation: 12 Ga. 461
• Parties: James Suggs, plaintiff in error. vs. Augustus Anderson and Wife, defendants in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

12 Ga. 461

James Suggs, plaintiff in error. vs. Augustus Anderson and Wife, defendants in error.

No. 75.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JANUARY TERM, 1853.

Trespass, &c. in Randolph Superior Court. Motion for new trial, and decision by Judge Taylor. September Term, 1852.

Augustus Anderson and Wife brought an action of trespass, &c. against James Suggs, for an assault and battery upon the wife of Anderson. The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, for $345. The proof was that Suggs came to Mrs. Hall's house, where Mrs. Anderson was; commenced a quarrel with her, in the course of which he said that " she would, or had parted, him and his wife;" to which she made no reply; Suggs abused her very much, and finally took her, and violently forced her out of the house.

Defendant's counsel moved the Court for a new trial—

1. Because the verdict is contrary to evidence.

2. Because the Court charged the Jury, that they were bound to find in favor of the plaintiff, if they were satisfied, from the evidence, that in a passion, defendant had used violence upon the plaintiff, or had, in anger, laid his hands upon plaintiff; that the words imputed to plaintiff, or used by her, if proved, might go in mitigation of the damages. But the " Jury were bound to find for the plaintiff, unless they should be satisfied that Mrs. Anderson, the plaintiff, was a trespasser; that Suggs might use the necessary force to remove the trespass."

3. Because the defendant was misled by Alden Hall, theonly witness in said case, in relation to what he would testify in favor of the defendant; and was thereby induced to believe that this defendant was not guilty of the charge, and did not have witnesses to prove the same. Hall told defendant he would prove defendant did not use any violence or injury on the plaintiff\'s wife; and that he did not drag her out by the arm, with any injury, violence or malice; and that plaintiff\'s wife admitted she was in fault, and had done wrong to the defendant.

4. Because said Hall said, he was so intoxicated at the time he testified, that he said he could not recollect all the facts that were necessary for the defendant's defence.

5. Because, since the trial had in said cause, he has learned of newly discovered testimony in his favor, to wit: that Mrs. Elizabeth Hall knew of said plaintiff's wife using language and opprobrious words and abuses, against defendant at the time, sufficient to give the defendant cause to remove plaintiff's wife from the house where Mrs. Hall was; and that it was the house of the defendant, and that he did not use violence or injure, or intend to injure, plaintiff's wife, but merely to remove her from defendant's house, peaceably and without injury to her person; and that plaintiff's wife had been in the habit of conveying tales, and creating mischief and broils between defendant and his wife; and that she caused frequent interruptions between defendant and his wife; and caused, or was instrumental in the separation of defendant's wife from him; and he has also learned he can prove that plaintiff's wife said she was to divide the amount recovered of defendant, with Hall, the witness; that the newly discovered testimony, herein stated, was not found or discovered, owing to the want of due...