Goucher v. Jamieson

Michigan Supreme Court

Goucher v. Jamieson

82 N.W. 663, 124 Mich. 21, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 459

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 663 (Goucher v. Jamieson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goucher v. Jamieson, 82 N.W. 663, 124 Mich. 21, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 459 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

The defendant has appealed from a verdict and judgment of $65 recovered by the plaintiff in a suit for assault and battery. The battery was not disputed, but the defendant claims that it was provoked by language used by the plaintiff derogatory to the defendant’s son, who appears to have picked some berries upon the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff spoke to the defendant about it, and admits.that defendant said, “Do you call my son a thief?” while it is claimed upon the part of the defendant that plaintiff said, “Your boy Tom is a thief,” before any blows were struck.

A number of questions were raised upon the introduc[22]*22tion of evidence. We have examined them, and think it unnecessary to say more than that they do not call for a reversal of the case.

The court instructed the jury that mere words, though insulting, do not justify an assault and battery, and that “no assault is justified, unless by some assault performed by the other party.” He also said, “The plaintiff would be entitled to recover such damages as he suffered on account of his feelings being hurt,” etc. The instructions given were, in our opinion, proper, under the circumstances of the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hooker, J.

The defendant has appealed from a verdict and judgment of $65 recovered by the plaintiff in a suit for assault and battery. The battery was not disputed, but the defendant claims that it was provoked by language used by the plaintiff derogatory to the defendant’s son, who appears to have picked some berries upon the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff spoke to the defendant about it, and admits.that defendant said, “Do you call my son a thief?” while it is claimed upon the part of the defendant that plaintiff said, “Your boy Tom is a thief,” before any blows were struck.

A number of questions were raised upon the introduc[22]*22tion of evidence. We have examined them, and think it unnecessary to say more than that they do not call for a reversal of the case.

The court instructed the jury that mere words, though insulting, do not justify an assault and battery, and that “no assault is justified, unless by some assault performed by the other party.” He also said, “The plaintiff would be entitled to recover such damages as he suffered on account of his feelings being hurt,” etc. The instructions given were, in our opinion, proper, under the circumstances of the case.

The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 663, 124 Mich. 21, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goucher-v-jamieson-mich-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack