Metzinger v. Perry

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Metzinger v. Perry

221 N.W. 418, 197 Wis. 16, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 326

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 9, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 221 N.W. 418 (Metzinger v. Perry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metzinger v. Perry, 221 N.W. 418, 197 Wis. 16, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 326 (Wis. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Eschweiler, J.

An. examination of the record in this case convinces us that the right result was reached and no injustice to plaintiff done thereby, and for those reasons as well as by the authority of sec. 274.37, Stats., the judgment, should and must be affirmed. Braun v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. 170 Wis. 10, 17, 172 N. W. 743.

The appellant has numerous assignments of error as grounds for his claim that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. None of them, however, can have any substantial effect upon the controlling feature of this case, which i's embodied in the jury’s findings that the assault and battery on the plaintiff by conductor Perry was done with the use of only the necessary force to repel an assault and threatened battery by the plaintiff, and which findings are amply supported. This renders immaterial a discussion of the details of many of the alleged errors.

[20]*20The admission by Perry, through his pleading and testimony, of the use of force in self-defense, then properly placed the burden in this case upon plaintiff to satisfy the jury by a fair preponderance of the evidence that Perry used more than reasonable or necessary force in such self-defense, and the court so properly charged the jury. Ogodziski v. Gara, 173 Wis. 371, 377, 181 N. W. 227.

• The court charged the jury to the effect that if they found that plaintiff used abusive or insulting language toward Perry at the time of the striking, then such language might be considered in mitigation of plaintiff’s compensatory damages. This was error, for0such evidence would be proper for consideration only on the question of punitory damages. Korney v. Boyd, 186 Wis. 594, 597, 203 N. W. 371. This went only to the question of damages and is immaterial.

We see nothing to be gained by a further discussion of the many questions so earnestly úrged upon our attention by appellant’s counsel. If there were errors on the trial they could not now be permitted to change the result reached in the court below.

By the Court, — Judgment affirmed.

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

Eschweiler, J.

An. examination of the record in this case convinces us that the right result was reached and no injustice to plaintiff done thereby, and for those reasons as well as by the authority of sec. 274.37, Stats., the judgment, should and must be affirmed. Braun v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. 170 Wis. 10, 17, 172 N. W. 743.

The appellant has numerous assignments of error as grounds for his claim that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. None of them, however, can have any substantial effect upon the controlling feature of this case, which i's embodied in the jury’s findings that the assault and battery on the plaintiff by conductor Perry was done with the use of only the necessary force to repel an assault and threatened battery by the plaintiff, and which findings are amply supported. This renders immaterial a discussion of the details of many of the alleged errors.

[20]*20The admission by Perry, through his pleading and testimony, of the use of force in self-defense, then properly placed the burden in this case upon plaintiff to satisfy the jury by a fair preponderance of the evidence that Perry used more than reasonable or necessary force in such self-defense, and the court so properly charged the jury. Ogodziski v. Gara, 173 Wis. 371, 377, 181 N. W. 227.

• The court charged the jury to the effect that if they found that plaintiff used abusive or insulting language toward Perry at the time of the striking, then such language might be considered in mitigation of plaintiff’s compensatory damages. This was error, for0such evidence would be proper for consideration only on the question of punitory damages. Korney v. Boyd, 186 Wis. 594, 597, 203 N. W. 371. This went only to the question of damages and is immaterial.

We see nothing to be gained by a further discussion of the many questions so earnestly úrged upon our attention by appellant’s counsel. If there were errors on the trial they could not now be permitted to change the result reached in the court below.

By the Court, — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 N.W. 418, 197 Wis. 16, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metzinger-v-perry-wis-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack