Whitsett v. Ransom

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 79 Mo. 258
• Parties: WHITSETT, Appellant, v. RANSOM.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 Mo. 258

WHITSETT, Appellant,

v.RANSOM.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.--HON. A. J. SEAY,

REVERSED.

Crews & Booth for appellant.

PHILIPS, C.

This is an action for assault and battery. Whitsett, the appellant, alleged in his petition that he and defendant were in attendance at a public sale in Franklin county, where many people were assembled, neighbors and acquaintances of defendant and plaintiff, and that defendant wrongfully and without cause, willfully, etc., assaulted, struck, threatened and pursued plaintiff with a club and spat in his face, and otherwise abused him with opprobrious and disgusting epithets and defamatory words; by reason of which plaintiff suffered great bodily fear and shame, injury and mental pain. He asked judgment for $3,000 damages. The answer was a general denial.

Plaintiff's evidence showed, with much force and consistency, the most aggravating conduct on defendant's part. It appears that plaintiff had a short time previous attached some personal property of one Hill, defendant's son-in-law, for debt. The officer had locked the goods in an out-house, and when plaintiff, a day or two afterward, called by to look after them, he found defendant in the house, which gave rise to some unpleasant words. On the way to the sale the defendant cut a stick, as if for a walking cane, which was large enough to do great injury to any one struck with it. Defendant afterward admitted he prepared this stick to “whale” the plaintiff with if he could provoke him into a demonstration. This evidence the defendant does not appear to have denied when on the stand. The evidence, it is true, is somewhat conflicting as to precisely how the parties were brought together at the sale, but no unprejudiced mind can review the whole testimony, or even that of the defendant himself, without being clearly satisfied that the defendant went to that sale contemplating and desiring a difficulty with the plaintiff. He inquired of plaintiff if he had said so and so about the defendant breaking into the house where the goods were, and gave him the lie, brandishing the club over him, denounced him as a liar--“a G--d d--d liar, a d--d son of a b--h,” and then spat in his face. The defendant admitted himself on the witness stand, that he spat in the plaintiff's face. Some one of defendant's witnesses stated that perhaps plaintiff gave the first opprobrious epithet. The plaintiff is an old man, and a citizen of long standing, and the highest...