Case Name: James K. Means and others, vs. Henry Means and others
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1853-12
Citations: 7 Rich. 533
Docket Number: 
Parties: James K. Means and others, vs. Henry Means and others.
Judges: Wardlaw, Withers, Whitner and Glover, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 533–536

Head Matter:
James K. Means and others, vs. Henry Means and others.
A witness giving bis opinion as to the value of a tract of land, said, it was worth $10 per aore, and was permitted by the Judge to say, that S. M. told him that there wero 600 acres: — He Id, that such testimony was not incompetent — it amounting to nothing more than the witness’s opinion that the whole tract was worth $6,000.
where a deed is introduced on a collateral point, slight proof of handwriting is enough.
It is a matter of discretion with the circuit Judge whether a paper shall be sont out with the jury or not.
An erroneous decision of the circuit Judge on a matter immaterial to the issue, and which could not have had the slightest effeot on the verdict, is no ground for a now trial.
Before Glover, J., at Union, August, Extra Term, 1853.
So much of the report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, as is necessary to a full understanding of the opinion delivered in the Court of • Appeals, is as follows:
“ All the witnesses who were examined in the several trials of this cause heretofore, were again examined at the present term, or their evidence read from the reports of Judges Ward-law and Frost, ( ) except Dr. James B. Hicks, William Little Reuben Coleman, James Lee and Jonas Swink. The only additional evidence was that of Henry Harvey Means, which was taken by commission.
“ The grounds on which the appellants rely relate chiefly to the sufficiency of the evidence. So much as suggests error in the ruling and charge of the presiding Judge will be noticed in the order in which they are stated.
“ 5th Ground. The number of acres of land constituting the tract mentioned in this ground of appeal, was not satisfactorily explained; nor was it important; but it was proved that the testator’s son William sold this tract, with the growing crop, in October, 1837, for $2,750.
“ 6th Ground. The handwriting of the testator, James Means, to the deed referred to in this ground of appeal, was proved by B. Johnson, who said he ‘ should believe this to be his handwriting,’ though he never saw him write but once. This evidence was objected to by Mr. Thomson, who had just introduced a return from the office of the said B. Johnson, Ordinary, to show the handwriting of the testator, James Means, which was signed to said return — the object being to show the handwriting of the testator at different periods, and in what respect it differed from his signature to his will.”
The verdict was for the executors, thus sustaining the will of the testator.
James K. Means, and others, heirs at law, and distributees of the testator, appealed, and now moved this Court for a' new trial on the grounds, inter alia:
5th. Because his Honor erred, as the defendants submit, in permitting John Littlejohn to state that he understood from Doctor Samuel Means, when he was looking at James K. Means’ land, that there was about 600 acres, when, in fact, there were only 492 acres — John Littlejohn’s estimate of the value fixed on the land shown him by Samuel Means ; this testimony was incompetent to fix the quantity and value of James K. Means’ plantation.
6th. Because his Honor permitted the deed said to have been signed by James Means to Joseph Foster, to be given in evidence when the witness said he had seen the maker write but once, and could only prove the paper by comparison ; and then his Honor still refused to permit the jury to have the papers thus compared by the witness, as the defendants contend there was little or no likeness existing between the papers thus referred to by the witness, as this was a matter of fact that could only be determined by inspection of the jury.
Herndon, Thomson, for appellants,
cited2Strob. 89; 1 Green. Ev. § 576.
Dawkins, contra.
(a) Vicio 5 Strob. 167, and 6 Rich. 1.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
O'Neall, J.
This vexed case has at last reached a point at which we can end the controversy.
The various grounds, except the fifth and sixth, are either re-agitations of matters of fact, on which the Court has so often passed, that it cannot be expected that anything should now be said, or, are so frivolous, that the zealous counsel has not pressed ' them.
In the 5th and 6th grounds there is nothing which can affect the verdict.
The witness, Littlejohn, was asked what was the value of James K. Means's land, which he had received from his father. He said, $10 per acre. Being asked how many acres it contained, he answered that Samuel Means told him 600 acres. This was objected to. The Judge let it go to the jury as the witness's standard of value. There was. nothing improper in this, for at last it was only the witness's opinion, that the land was worth six thousand dollars. The appellants could not have been injured by it, for they tell us in their ground that there were only 492 acres. Having the best evidence in their own power of this fact, the deed, they could and did correct it.
The matter about the deed from J ames Means to Joseph Foster is easily explained. It was not introduced to prove title, but as an instance of mis-spelling his own name by the testator, like that which occurred in signing the will. On such a collateral matter, slight proof, such as Johnson's belief that it was his writing, is enough.
It was purely a matter of discretion with the Judge, whether he suffered the paper to be taken out by the jury or not.
After having thus remarked on these grounds, more out of respect for the learned counsel than anything else, I will add, that if the decision of the Judge had been wrong on both, they could not have affected the case; for they were perfectly immaterial to the issue, and could not have had the slightest effect on the verdict.
The motion is dismissed.
Wardlaw, Withers, Whitner and Glover, JJ., concurred.
Motion dismissed.