Walker v. Martin

Decision Date30 September 1869
PartiesMARTIN O. WALKERv.HUGH MARTIN.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.

This was an action on the case brought by Martin against Walker and Cutting, for malicious prosecution. A sufficient statement will be found in the opinion of the court.

Messrs. JEWETT & JACKSON, for the appellant.

Mr. GEORGE W. BRANDT, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This action was originally brought by Martin against Walker and Cutting, and on a trial by jury, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of twenty thousand dollars, and judgment entered for that amount.

On appeal to this court, the judgment was reversed on the ground, chiefly, that the damages were excessive. The cause was remanded for a new trial, and, on the second trial, against Walker alone, Cutting having died in the meantime, the jury awarded the plaintiff twenty-five thousand dollars as damages. On remittitur being entered of five thousand dollars, judgment was rendered for the sum of twenty thousand dollars.

To reverse this judgment, the defendant, Walker, has appealed to this court.

The case first here is reported in 43 Ill. 508. In that case, each of the defendants was responsible, so that, in fact, the finding amounted to no more than a verdict of ten thousand dollars against each of them. We considered, on a full examination of the case, such damages were excessive, out of all proportion to any conceivable injury the plaintiff may have suffered, and accordingly reversed the judgment, deeming it a case eminently worthy the consideration of another jury.

The present verdict is two-fold greater than the first, inasmuch as there is but one defendant to respond to it. If the first verdict against the two defendants was excessive, this is outrageously so, and must be set aside. In the opinion delivered in the former case, we said, cases are numerous in which this court has exercised the power to set aside verdicts for the reason that the damages assessed were excessive, and it appeared probable, from the amount assessed, the jury had acted under the influence of prejudice or passion. In such cases, it would be a severe reflection upon the law, and a stigma upon the trial by jury, to say that no redress could be afforded; to admit that a jury is “a chartered libertine,” free to indulge their worst passions, and, through their influence, victimize every man who may be so unfortunate as to have a case before them, in which his conduct does not show to the best advantage.

We are more deeply impressed than we were before that this verdict is the result of passion and prejudice, in which the judgment of the members of the jury had no share.

We are free to admit, the conduct of the defendant throughout the whole transaction, was unjustifiable, and that malice actuated him in the proceedings instituted against the plaintiff. Yet it must be borne in mind that many reputable business men of the city of his residence concurred in the opinion, that his character was not the best. It is true, a larger number of the same citizens testified to the plaintiff's good character, notwithstanding which, the impression is made, that he was not in such a position, in society or among business men, as to be greatly injured by the rude course the defendant pursued toward him. He has lost no character by the prosecution; his business, such as it may be, has not been injured thereby. A few hundred dollars would fully compensate for all the pecuniary loss he may have suffered, yet something is undoubtedly due as atonement for the actual wrong done him by the invasion of his civil and natural rights under the forms of law. What that something shall be, is, for the most part,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT