Tuck v. Springfield Traction Co.
Decision Date | 10 January 1910 |
Citation | 140 Mo. App. 335,124 S.W. 1079 |
Parties | TUCK v. SPRINGFIELD TRACTION CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Plaintiff's attorney in argument accused defendant's attorney of not trying the case fairly, saying that he had objected and objected all through the case, and asked the court to reprimand plaintiff's attorney. On objection being made and overruled, plaintiff's attorney continued by stating that defendant's attorney had tried bluffing from the start, and had been unfair. Again on objection, plaintiff's attorney was permitted to proceed with reprimand. Held, that such argument was highly reprehensible and deserved an immediate reprimand.
6. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1060) — REVIEW — PREJUDICE — MISCONDUCT OF ATTORNEY.
Argument of an attorney to the jury, though reprehensible and improper, and permitted without the sustaining of an objection or reprimand by the judge, was not ground for reversal, where it appeared on the whole case that the judgment was for the right party.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; A. H. Wear, Special Judge.
Action by Price Tuck by his next friend, J. N. Tuck, against the Springfield Traction Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This was an action for damages commenced in the circuit court of Greene county. The part of the petition charging negligence is as follows:
The answer of the defendant is a general denial. The accident complained of in plaintiff's petition, occurred on a drizzly afternoon in February, 1908, on Boonville street in Springfield, Mo., and was caused by the collision of a car belonging to the Springfield Traction Company, the defendant in the court below. Price Tuck, with his brother Claude, had started home in a two-horse top buggy and were driving north on Boonville street, close to and parallel with defendant's street car track. The buggy top was up and and the curtains down. There was a small lookout glass in the rear curtain which was clouded by the mist according to the testimony. The evidence is that they looked out from time to time to see whether there was any car behind them. The result of the collision — which took place between Center and Calhoun streets by a car going in the same direction as that taken by the plaintiff — was that the four wheels of the buggy were broken to pieces — every spoke broken out — the buggy was turned over on the horses, and the team and buggy were dragged about 50 feet. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that the gong was not sounded, or, if it was, that it was so out of repair and in such a condition that it could only be heard a short distance from the car; that just before the car started on this trip parties were seen working at the gong underneath the car. The evidence of some of the witnesses for the plaintiff tended to show that the car never slacked up at all until it struck the buggy. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the motorman only saw the team a short while before the car struck the buggy — at a distance of about 40 or 50 feet; that the front part of the car did not come in contact with the buggy.
The motorman testified that before he came up with the buggy he was ringing the gong and threw the power off and that the car was "drifting"; "and when I got even with the team, I released the brake and put on the power." He stated that the team was in safety when the front of the car passed; that there was no fender on the car.
Another witness for the defendant testified that he was on the car, and that just as the motorman got opposite the driver of the buggy, he tapped the gong once and looked at them, and that at this time, the car was clear in front. "As he tapped the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hancock v. Crouch
...other persons should, by their behavior, show a decent respect for the court and for the opposing counsel'. Tuck v. Springfield Traction Co., 140 Mo.App. 335, 124 S.W. 1079, 1081; Blyston-Spencer v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 152 Mo.App. 118, 132 S.W. 1175, 1183(17). Our appellate courts......
-
Rouchene v. Gamble Const. Co.
... ... S.W. 431. (c) The statement and argument as a whole were ... entirely proper. Tuck v. Springfield Traction Co., ... 124 S.W. 1079; Duerler Mfg. Co. v. Eichhorn, 99 S.W ... 716; ... ...
-
Fisher v. Ozark Milk Service
... ... 139, 119 S.W.2d 961; ... Pitcher v. Schoch, 345 Mo. 1184, 139 S.W.2d 463; ... Tuck v. Springfield Traction Co., 140 Mo.App. 335, ... 124 S.W. 1079; Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53, 55 ... ...
-
Rouchene v. Gamble Const. Co., 33262.
... ... Peper, 218 S.W. 431. (c) The statement and argument as a whole were entirely proper. Tuck v. Springfield Traction Co., 124 S.W. 1079; Duerler Mfg. Co. v. Eichhorn, 99 S.W. 716; Texas & N.O ... ...