Case ID: la_140/html/0869-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(74 South. 177)
    No. 21528.
    MERTZ v. DI GIORGIO.
    (Feb. 12, 1917.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Assault and Battebt <&wkey;35 — Civil Action —Evidence—Sueeicienct.
    In an action for assault and battery and abusive language, evidence held to sustain a judgment for plaintiff on whose premises the difficulty occurred, notwithstanding defendant’s claim that plaintiff was the guilty party.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Assault and Battery, Cent. Dig. § 51.]
    Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; T. C. W. Ellis, Judge.
    Action by Elizabeth Mertz against Yito Di Giorgio, for assault and battery and abusive language. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. J. Rossi, of New Orleans, for appellant. James Barley Rosser, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.
   PROVOSTY, J.

Mrs. Mertz sues Mr. Di Giorgio for assault and battery and abusive language. He retorts that the thing is just the other way. Her house and his corner grocery and saloon are about ten feet apart, with a board partition midway between, extending, like the houses, to the sidewalk. On each side of this partition is an alleyway closed at the sidewalk by a door. The encounter was in her alleyway, at the door of her kitchen. She says he held his fist under her nose and called her bitch and whore, and would not leave her premises, and she sought to make him leave by using the stick end of her broom upon him, when he wrenched the broom out of her hands and beat her with it, following her in doing so into her kitchen. His side of the story it is needless to give, since the trial judge did not believe it, and we find no reason for disagreeing with him. Out of the din of the conflicting witnesses one fact stands prominent: The two homes had not heen on good terms, and it was her premises which were invaded.

The judgment for $250 is affirmed, with costs in both courts.