Townsend v. Briggs

Assault.—In an Action for Personal Injuries It Appeared that plaintiff entered defendant’s shop and was ordered out; that, as plaintiff stepped back to the door, defendant struck him several times on the head with a mallet and with his fist, which caused plaintiff to fall on a cutting machine, and injure his left arm so that it had to be amputated. Held, that a verdict for plaintiff was justified by the evidence.

Assault—Damages.—In Such Action, a Verdict of §9,000 was not so excessive as to show bias or prejudice.

Witnesses.—It was not Prejudicial Error to Allow Plaintiff to Answer the preliminary question: “You may state whether or not you have ever received any injury caused by . . . . defendant,” when there follows, without objection, a narration of how the injury was received, and what was said and done by defendant.

Damages for Personal Injuries.—It was Proper to Allow Plaintiff to Testify that he had formerly lost two fingers on his right hand, and to show his hand to the jury, since they should know to what extent the loss of his left arm had deprived him of his earning power.

Damages for Personal Injuries.—It was Proper for Plaintiff’s Physician to testify that he told plaintiff of his condition, and that it was necessary to amputate his arm, since the mental suffering re-suiting therefrom was attributable to defendant, if he was the cause of the injury.

Witnesses—Cross-examination.—Where a Life Insurance Agent was called to testify that the mortuary tables in an encyclopedia are in general use, and was not asked on his examination in chief to whom the tables applied, but stated on cross-examination that they applied only to insurable persons, it was not proper cross-examination to ask him “what insurable persons are.”

Witnesses.—Defendant’s Questions: “Do You Know his [plaintiff’s] habits as to sobriety?” and “Do you know what his reputation is for sobriety?” were incompetent, as they called for the witnesses’ knowledge at the time of the trial, which was two years after the injury was received.

Assault—Damages.—In Such Action It was Proper to Charge that, “if the jury find from the evidence that defendant, from malicious motives, and a wrongful disregard of” plaintiff’s rights, “assaulted him and beat him wrongfully,” and plaintiff was injured, “directly or approximately, then plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages he has suffered thereby,” and the amount of damages is for the jury alone to determine.

New Trial — Prejudice of Jurors.—Where a New Trial was Asked for because two of the jurors were prejudiced against defendant, and affidavits are read as to statements made by the jurors showing their prejudice, which statements are denied by the jurors in counter-affidavits, the action of the court in denying the new trial will not be disturbed.