Trimble v. Tantlinger

• Decision Date: 27 January 1897
• Citation: 104 Iowa 665,69 N.W. 1045
• Parties: TRIMBLE v. TANTLINGER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

104 Iowa 665

69 N.W. 1045

TRIMBLE

v.TANTLINGER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 27, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Johnson county; M. J. Wade, Judge.

Action to recover damages for the alleged speaking of certain false, malicious, and defamatory words, in March, 1894, in the presence of Thomas Jordan, James Evans, J. W. White, and others. Defendant answered, denying generally. The case was tried to a jury, and a verdict of $1,300 rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground, among others, that the damages were excessive. The court overruled said motion as to all said other grounds, and, finding that the verdict was excessive, reduced the same to $800, giving plaintiff the right to elect to accept judgment for $800 or to submit to a new trial. Plaintiff elected to accept judgment for $800, and the motion for new trial was overruled as to all the grounds thereof, and judgment entered against the defendant for $800, from which he appeals. Affirmed.Ranck & Bradley and Joe A. Edwards, for appellant.

Ewing & Hart, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. Appellant's first complaints are as to certain rulings in taking the testimony. There is evidence tending to show two conversations in which the defendant spoke concerning the plaintiff,--one in Leonard'sstore, and one in the street near the store. Plaintiff was asked, on cross-examination, how long he stayed in the store, and whether he went in to inquire if the township trustees had been there. These questions were objected to and sustained, as not proper cross-examination. Conceding that the ruling was erroneous, yet there was no prejudice, as the witness proceeded to state that he did not go there to inquire about the township trustees. Appellant complains that plaintiff's objection to two questions asked the witness Horace Page was sustained, and that plaintiff's motion to strike out all of his testimony was also sustained. Page testified to a conversation between the parties to this suit in Leonard's store, but failed to fix the time, and showed by his evidence that the conversation was in relation to another matter than that involved in this suit. The testimony was properly stricken out, and therefore there was no prejudice in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the question asked.

2. Plaintiff does not allege any damages in his petition, but, after setting out the speaking of the words, concludes his petition as follows: “Wherefore plaintiff asks judgment...