Weaver v. Halsey
| Decision Date | 30 June 1878 |
| Citation | 1 Ill.App. 558,1 Bradw. 558 |
| Parties | FRANK WEAVERv.AXLE HALSEY. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. T. D. Murphy, Judge, presiding.
Mr. John A. Gilman, for appellant; that the evidence offered should have been admitted, cited Starkie on Ev. 82; Patterson v. Gage, 23 Vt. 558.
That where instructions not based on the evidence, or calculated to mislead a jury are given, the verdict should be set aside: Adams v. Smith, 58 Ill. 417; Cusick v. Campbell, 68 Ill. 508; Carter v. Carter, 62 Ill. 439; Herrick v. Gary, 65 Ill. 101; Brown v. Graham, 24 Ill. 628; Gibson v. Webster, 44 Ill. 483; Harmit v. Thompson, 46 Ill. 460; Bullock v. Narratt, 49 Ill. 62; Bailey v. Godfrey, 54 Ill. 485; Baldwin v. Killian, 63 Ill. 550.
Upon the question of tender: Cole v. Blake, Peak, 179; Richardson v. Jackson, 8 M. & W. 298; Bull v. Parker, 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 345; Conway v. Case, 22 Ill. 139; 2 Greenl'f's Ev. § 605.
That where there is no evidence to sustain the verdict, or where the verdict is manifestly against the weight of evidence, the judgment will be reversed: Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Chambers, 71 Ill. 519; T. W. & W. R'y Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Carney v. Tully, 74 Ill. 375; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 77 Ill. 598; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Stump, 69 Ill. 409; Chicago v. Lavelle, 83 Ill. 482; Blanchard v. Pratt, 37 Ill. 243; Koerter v. Erslinger, 44 Ill. 477; Haycroft v. Davis, 49 Ill. 455; Booth v. Hynes, 54 Ill. 363; Reynolds v. Lambert, 69 Ill. 495.
That a servant may be dismissed for causes alleged by appellant: Robinson v. Hindman, 3 Esp. 235; Spain v. Arnott, 2 Stark. 256; Gundell v. Poutigny, 4 Champ. 375; Atkin v. Acton, 4 C. and P. 208; Byrd v. Boyd, 4 McCord, 246; Lacy v. Osbaldiston, 8 C. & P. 80; Singer v. McCormick, 4 W. & S. 265; Hamlin et al. v. Race, 78 Ill. 422; 2 Chitty on Con. 843.
Upon the question of apportionment of costs: Wickersham v. Hurd, 72 Ill. 464; Lee v. Quirk, 20 Ill. 392.
Mr. J. H. Fowler and Mr. Chase Fowler, for appellee; upon the question of tender, cited Rev. Stat. Chap. 135, §§ 3, 4, 5; 2 Parsons on Con. 637; Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 Ill. 513; Cilley v. Hawkins, 48 Ill. 305; Sweetland v. Tuthill, 54 Ill. 215.
That the verdict will not be disturbed because the evidence is conflicting: C. & R. I. R. R. Co. v. Crandall, 41 Ill. 234; Summers v. Stark, 76 Ill. 208; Keightlinger v. Egan, 75 Ill. 141.
Upon the question of apportionment of costs: Wickersham v. Hurd, 72 Ill. 464.
This was an action commenced before a Justice by Halsey against Weaver, for the services of the former as a hired hand on the farm of the latter, at $24 per month and for damages for being discharged before the expiration of the time for which he was hired, which plaintiff below claimed was from the first day of March, A. D. 1877, until after corn picking. Mr. Weaver claimed that no time was specified, except that if he kept him until after haying and harvest, he was not to discharge him then. With this exception he claimed that the contract was $24 per month, as long as the parties agreed.
Halsey commenced work on March 1st, and on or about the 19th of March, Weaver told him he was altogether dissatisfied with him, and told him he had better go and he would hire another man, and he went.
The refusal of instructions asked by Weaver's attorney is assigned for error, but as the bill of exceptions does not show that all the given instructions for defendant below are in it, perhaps we cannot consider them; at any rate as we reverse for other reasons we pass on to the consideration of the questions properly raised in relation to the exclusion of evidence offered on the part of Weaver.
The question was whether the conduct of Halsey was such that Weaver was justified in discharging him therefor.
In order to avail himself of this excuse, if there was a contract that Halsey was to work until after corn picking, Weaver should show that the conduct of Halsey was improper, and that Weaver with knowledge of it discharged him.
The alleged misconduct was libidinous advances to a female fellow servant, shirking as between himself and a male fellow servant, and unreasonable fault-finding about his food at the table, and to the maid servant who did the cooking at other times, and because she sided with her employer's family.
There was evidence tending to show that Halsey tried to get into the maid servant's room at night; that he used conversation when they were together indicating a desire for sexual intercourse, and a wish for compliance on her part, and that he called her attention to domestic animals on the farm, when the relation between these animals was such as to render joint observation of them improper and indecent.
In this condition of things Weaver offered to prove by the maid servant, that she gave notice to Mr. and Mrs. Weaver that she would leave their service if Halsey remained; that she could not on account of Halsey's indecent behavior, as a decent girl, remain if he did. The Court sustained an objection, and excluded it because it was irrelevant to the case, and there was proper exception taken.
He also offered to prove by the male fellow servant that he had had an unfair share of the work put upon him by Halsey, and that trouble had taken place between him and Halsey, and that he had told Weaver that if Halsey staid, he would leave. Upon objection of Halsey, this offered evidence was excluded and exception duly taken.
He also offered to prove that Halsey complained that the food was too thin, that he could not stand it to work on it; and to show that this was unreasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial