The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-06-02
Decisions of the Supreme Court

In the supreme court, state of North
Dakota, April term, 1918. Leonard
Stockwell, plaintiff and appellant, VS.
J. w. Brinton, defendant and respond
ent. ..a
This is a civil action to recover
damages for IN alleged unjustiiable
assault upon plaintiff by defendant
Defendant denied the assault and
sought to justify any injuries inflicted
by him upon the. plaintiff as done in
his necessary self-defense. The jury
found in favor of defendant by a
general verdict. Plaintiff appeals. II
is held: = '.,.' ..'
% No reversible errors appear in
the admission or exclusion Of testimony;
many rulings complained of examined
CD 1t not appearing from the
record that any request on demand
was made upon defendant, his coun-
sci or any witness for defendant for
the production of the weapon admit
tedly used by Brinton, nc presumption
can be INDUCED in that the same had
been secreted and that evidence had
been suppressed.
go Any error in the Instructions
concerning punitive damages cannot
amount to reversible error, as the
jury have by their verdict found nc
actual damages to have been unlaw-
fully sustained by plaintiff at the
hands of defendant.
(4) No error was committed in re-
fusing the requested instructions re-
viewed on assignments of error.
60 Under the conflict of evidence
as to the ARRAY there is. sufficient
proof to sustain the verdict.
co. By waving right of argument
upon facts to the jury at the close OF
the trial, after the court had. limited
the respective counsel to forty-five
minutes for argument on each side OF
the case, they thereupon stipulating
to and Hereunder submitting the
cause to the jury without argument
all objection to the time limit so i'm
posed was thereby waived.
(Syllabus by the court.)
From an order of the district court
of Billings county, Nuchols, lspecia.
judge, presiding, denying new trial
plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. Opinion by Goss, j.
M. A. Hildreth. of Fargo, attorney
for plaintiff n appellant.
Leslie A. Simpson, of Dickinson, at
torney for defendant and respondent
Anna Booren, plaintiff and respond
| SIlL vs.. 1SOI sc IL. NC w 1llldIIlS, uSl6nu-
ant and appellant.
CD Evidence examined, and held
that the witness DR.. Roberts was dis
qualified under section 1904, R. c
1906 from testifying to conversations
had with plaintiff, and that plaintiff
had not waived the privileged nature
Of such communication. The tria
court should exercise it's discretion il
each case where the question o.
privilege arises, and this discretion
will not be disturbed except fol
abuse.
CD The trial court in ruling upor
an objection to the introduction of the
above evidence used language quoted
in the opinion which would discredi
the testimony of the doctor if any hat
been given by him. However, as tn,
doctor gave no evidence it is helc
that no prejudice to the defendant re.
suited. Besides, the defendant did no
request that the jury be excluded dur.
ing the argument upon this, lega
proposition.
CD The witness Blount upon cross
examination failed to answer some o
the questions in a direct manner ant
he was classified by the court in thu
presence of the jury; but the Language
used was provoked by the conduct O
the witness and was without prejudic,
to the defendant.
a, 5, 6) Certain instructions re,
quested of the trial court examined
and held, that their refusal was no
error as they were substantial,
recovered In other portions of TIL
charge.
rs Certain instructions given b,
the trial court examined, and held tt