Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. May

• Decision Date: 07 April 1913
• Docket Number: 15,942
• Citation: 104 Miss. 422,61 So. 449
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. E. N. MAY
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

61 So. 449

104 Miss. 422

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. E. N. MAY

No. 15,942

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 7, 1913

APPEAL from the circuit court of Bolivar county, HON. SAM COOK Judge.

Suit by E. N. May against the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Mayes &amp Mayes, attorneys for appellant.

Thos S. Owens and Percy Bell, attorneys for appellee.

No brief of counsel on either side found in the record.

OPINION

REED, J.

We do not find any error in the trial of this case. It is contended by appellee that the verdict is excessive. In order to properly consider this, we should look into the case.

The appellee is quite a young man; in truth, a mere youth. He was about nineteen years old at the time of the alleged mistreatment. He was employed by the railroad company to do certain work at its Greenville station. After an employment of less than a month he was discharged. It is stated that his services were not satisfactory. He asked to be paid for his time, explaining that he was absent from his home, which was in Vicksburg, and without means to pay his board. He went to the company's office on the morning after he was discharged, and was told that authority had been requested to issue him a time check, which should come through the superintendent. The office of this official was in the same building as that of the agent. He was told that the check was expected shortly, and that he might return in the evening of that day to ascertain if it had been received. He did return that evening, and was engaged in an earnest discussion with the head clerk in the office concerning the check and his need of the money, when the agent of the company interrupted the conversation, insulted him, and put him out of the building. Now, the agent's account of what occurred differs from that testified to by appellee. But the jury had the right to believe appellee's statement of what transpired. Not only did they have this right to so believe him, but, from the verdict, we must believe that they did accept his testimony as the true version of the occurrence.

Touching the right of the jury to believe appellee's account, we note that the appellant, defendant in the court below, asked for and was given by the court two instructions, which told the jury that they have a right to believe or disbelieve any witness, in whole or in part, and that in determining the credibility of any witness they could take into consideration all of the facts and circumstances and the demeanor of the witness on the stand, as well as his interest in the suit, and that it is for the jury to say what belief they will give to the testimony of each witness. Now, it will be seen that the question of the verdict being excessive must be determined by the occurrence as stated by appellee. The agent says that he was acting in the scope of his authority, and as the agent of appellant, when he cursed appellee and put him out. He admits applying to appellee a very insulting epithet. Appellee testifies that he did not give the agent any occasion for his anger and abuse, and that while he was talking with the clerk about the wages due him in a reasonable and proper way the agent burst from an inner office and into their presence with great anger and in a threatening manner ordered him out, said he would kick him (appellee) out if he did not go, and did actually take hold of him and push him through the door. During all the attack the agent was cursing appellee and applying to him the vilest and most insulting epithets.

We would not for a moment think of uttering the words used because they are so inconceivably disgusting; we would not write them on these pages. We cannot imagine how words more insulting could be found in the vilest vocabulary. To Mississippians their use has in past years been considered a mortal offense. In this state, where women are respected and honored, and mothers are loved and revered, such profane and degrading words as were directed by the company's agent at the appellee were enough to produce an insult deeper and more lasting than in man's power to estimate. The record shows that the agent was a man of mature years, who had been in the service of the company over twenty years. We see, therefore, a man in a prominent and responsible position insulting in the manner stated a youth just beginning life. It is true the agent said that he did not use all of the vile terms mentioned by appellee. However, upon cross-examination, he admitted that he applied such words to negroes. The jury might well have concluded that, as he had...