Case Name: Mathilda Pokriefka v. John Mackurat, Sr.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1892-04-22
Citations: 91 Mich. 399
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mathilda Pokriefka v. John Mackurat, Sr.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 399–400

Head Matter:
Mathilda Pokriefka v. John Mackurat, Sr.
Assault and battery — Evidence—Comments of court.
In a civil suit for assault and battery,—
a — Evidence of defendant’s good character is inadmissible.
b — Plaintiff may show all that occurred; and it is error to exclude or comment unfavorably upon any testimony tending to prove any of the circumstances leading up to the assault.
c — If defendant offers testimony tending to show some other cause or reason for plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff may rebut such testimony.
Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.)
Argued April 6, 1892.
Decided April 22, 1892.
Case. Plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
William Look and H. F. Chipman, for appellant.
William Jennison, for defendant.

Opinion:
McGrath, J.
This is a civil action for assault and battery.. The injuries complained of were serious. Defendant had a verdict, and plaintiff appeals.
The judgment must be reversed, because—
1. The evidence as to defendant's good' character was improperly received. Fahey v. Crotty, 63 Mich. 383.
2. Plaintiff and defendant were neighbors, each .having a son about 19 years of age. Plaintiff claimed that her son had b.een assaulted in front of her own house by defendant and his son; that defendant had thrown a brick, which struck plaintiff's son on the head, inflicting a severe scalp wound; that plaintiff ran out and took her son by the arm, to assist him into the house, whereupon defendant threw a second brick, striking her on the back, inflicting a severe injury, which was followed by a miscarriage. Plaintiff was entitled to show all that occurred, and it was error to exclude or comment unfavorably upon any testimony tending to prove any of the-circumstances leading up to the assault. It was competent for her to show that she took no part. in the quarrel, and that the attack upon her was uncalled for and wanton.
3. Defendant offered testimony tending to show some other cause or reason for plaintiff's injury, and it was error to exclude the testimony offered in rebuttal contradicting defendant's theory.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to plaintiff.
The other Justices concurred.