Graham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Graham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

71 S.E. 235, 89 S.C. 1, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 216

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 9, 1911

Docket7904

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 235 (Graham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Graham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 71 S.E. 235, 89 S.C. 1, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 216 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones.

The complaint in this case was based' on the allegation that on November 5, 1909, in Florence county, at Coward’s station, on defendant’s line, defendant, by its station agent, E. L. Smith, grossly insulted and abused plaintiff and maliciously assaulted him with a pistol, while he was lawfully upon defendant’s premises for the purpose of obtaining freight and paying the charge due thereon1. Verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of plaintiff for one thousand dollars.

Motion for a new trial was made on two grounds: (1) “That the verdict is so excessive as to show on its face that *3 the jury were influenced by passion, or whim, or prejudice; (2) that the failure of defendant to have the benefit of the testimony of the witness, S. C. Smith, could not have been foreseen and guarded against, and without this testimony the defendant has not had a fair and impartial submission of its case to the jury.” These grounds are renewed here by exceptions, all other exceptions being abandoned.

1 We cannot say that the verdict was the result of passion, whim, or prejudice, upon anything appearing in the record, or that there was abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial for excessive verdict. There was evidence tending to show that defendant’s agent assaulted plaintiff with a deadly weapon upon the station premises, while plaintiff was there dealing with the agent in reference to business within the scope of the agent’s employment. The verdict may be regarded as large; but not being without support in the evidence, this Court cannot interfere. Bing v. Atlantic C. L. R. R. Co., 86 S. C. 529.

2 It may have been unfortunate for the defendant that it went to trial without the testimony of the witness, Smith, but that affords no ground for relief in this Court. There was not even a motion for continuance on the ground of the absence of the witness. There was certainly no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial on this ground.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones.

The complaint in this case was based' on the allegation that on November 5, 1909, in Florence county, at Coward’s station, on defendant’s line, defendant, by its station agent, E. L. Smith, grossly insulted and abused plaintiff and maliciously assaulted him with a pistol, while he was lawfully upon defendant’s premises for the purpose of obtaining freight and paying the charge due thereon1. Verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of plaintiff for one thousand dollars.

Motion for a new trial was made on two grounds: (1) “That the verdict is so excessive as to show on its face that *3 the jury were influenced by passion, or whim, or prejudice; (2) that the failure of defendant to have the benefit of the testimony of the witness, S. C. Smith, could not have been foreseen and guarded against, and without this testimony the defendant has not had a fair and impartial submission of its case to the jury.” These grounds are renewed here by exceptions, all other exceptions being abandoned.

1 We cannot say that the verdict was the result of passion, whim, or prejudice, upon anything appearing in the record, or that there was abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial for excessive verdict. There was evidence tending to show that defendant’s agent assaulted plaintiff with a deadly weapon upon the station premises, while plaintiff was there dealing with the agent in reference to business within the scope of the agent’s employment. The verdict may be regarded as large; but not being without support in the evidence, this Court cannot interfere. Bing v. Atlantic C. L. R. R. Co., 86 S. C. 529.

2 It may have been unfortunate for the defendant that it went to trial without the testimony of the witness, Smith, but that affords no ground for relief in this Court. There was not even a motion for continuance on the ground of the absence of the witness. There was certainly no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial on this ground.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 235, 89 S.C. 1, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-atlantic-coast-line-r-r-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack