Case Name: SELAH DUSTIN vs. ASA D. DICKENSON
Court: United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1880-12
Citations: 1 Howell N.P. 201
Docket Number: 
Parties: SELAH DUSTIN vs. ASA D. DICKENSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan nisi prius cases, decided by the state and federal courts in Michigan
Volume: 1
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
United States Circuit Court — Eastern District of Michigan.
SELAH DUSTIN vs. ASA D. DICKENSON.
Motion for New Trial — A Rampant Witness.
Where the plaintiff is testifying in his own behalf, and insists upon violating repeatedly the orders of the Court directing him to cease using abusive language towards the defendant, he cannot complain if the Court sets aside a verdict obtained by him in the action.
Plaintiff is familiarly known as Captain Dustin, he having for many years been a Captain on vessels on the upper lakes and the Detroit river.
He sued defendant to recover an alleged large balance due from the defendant, who resides in New York, but who was formerly an attorney in Detroit, on an old unsettled account.
During the trial, while giving testimony in his own behalf, in spite of the objections of counsel for defend ant, the request of his own attorney, and the orders of the Court, plaintiff went off into a harangue, consisting of expletives that a Captain of a vessel might have used (under the old order of things on shipboard) towards a recalcitrant deck hand, but which sounds strangely in a court of justice when employed to characterize an opponent.
The number of epithets that plaintiff applied to defendant was too numerous to be counted except by a professional accountant.
He indulged in similar tantrums several times during the trial. In spite of this conduct, which would ordinarily prejudice a jury against a party, Captain Dustin obtained a verdict for a good round sum.
Defendant’s counsel promptly moved for a new trial on the ground of the misconduct of the plaintiff on the witness stand, above alluded to, and upon more than a score of other grounds.
(December, 1880.)
John Atkinson for Plaintiff.
Griffin and Dickenson for Defendant.

Opinion:
The Court,
Bbown, J.,
in a written opinion of much interest to the legal profession, held that the first ground was tenable, and granted a new trial.
The plaintiff subsequently gained another verdict, which was not disturbed.