Case Name: SOLOMAN LOUDER andn Wife v. WILLIAM B. HINSON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1857-06
Citations: 4 Jones 369
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOLOMAN LOUDER andn Wife v. WILLIAM B. HINSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 369–371

Head Matter:
SOLOMAN LOUDER andn Wife v. WILLIAM B. HINSON.
Where one occasion sought, under color of process, to wreak his vengeance on an individual and his family, by harrassing and insulting them, the jury were properly instructed that they might give vindictive damages.
This was an actioN of trespass, A. B., tried before Calb-avell, Judge, at the Eall Term, 1856, of Cabarrus Superior Court. ,
The plaintiff’s declared for an assault and battery upon the wife.
Hinson, a constable, having process against Monroe Louder, a son of the defendant, and another, for a breach of the peace3 came in the night-time, with one Long, who is also a defendant, and two others, to the house of the plaintiff, at a late hour of the night, after the family had gone to bed, and en-quired for the son. He was answered by the father that the boy had gone to bed, and he did not wish him disturbed that night, and offered to be surety for his appearance next day, at any place he would appoint. The defendant, Hinson, with an oath, said, that he would make the arrest that night. Hin-son and Long then got into a scuffle with the plaintiff, and one of them pulled his hair. Hinson then come to the fireplace where the youth, Monroe Louder, was standing, and tapping him on the shoulder, said, that he arrested him, and that he was his prisoner. The plaintiffs both, then told the party that they had got wliat they wanted, and to leave the house, which they refused to do, but indulged in offensive ■and profane language towards the plaintiffs, and wanton conduct towards their property. One of the party, Long, rushed at the anale plaintiff with a shovel, and was prevented from striking him by the son, Monroe, but pushed him back on the bed. The female plaintiff, who was lying in bed, reached up and got a gun, which was ¡above her, when the defendant, Hinson, seized it, took it away from her, and struck her with it violently, leaving marks of violence on her head and ear for several days afterwards. After this, the said Hinson and his associates, remained in the house, and about it, for nearly & quarter of an hour longer, making insulting and derogatory remarks towards the plaintiffs ; after which they went off with their prisoner.
His Honor charged the jury that, they believed, from the testimony, that the parties sought the occasion, under process, to wreak their vengeance on the Louder family, by har-rassing and insulting them, it would be a case where they might give vindictive damages. Defendant excepted to this •charge.
"Verdict for the plaintiffs, and several damages against the ■defendants. Judgment rendered. Hinson only appealed to this Court.
Jones, for plaintiff.
No counsel appeared for defendant in this Court.

Opinion:
Nash, C. J.
The action is trespass for an assault and battery upon the female plaintiff. In his charge, his Honor instructed the jury, that if they believed, from the testimony, that the parties sought the occasion, under color of process, to wreak their vengeance on the Louder family — to harrass and insult them, that it would be a case where they were allowed to give vindictive damages for the battery upon the feme plaintiff, if one had been committed. This charge is in exact conformity to the opinion expressed by the Judge below, before whom the case of Causee v. Anders, 3 Dev. and Bat. 246. In that opinion, the jury were instructed " that the plaintiff had a right to expect a full compensation in damages for the injury really sustained, &c., but in addition to this, the jury were sometimes called on to increase the amount of damages, by adding on something by the way of punishment, where it appeared the defendant was actuated by malice, and a total disregard of the laws, and the plaintiff was in no wise to blame." This opinion was adopted by the Supreme Court, almost in so many words.
This is a case for vindictive damages, and the charge here was within the spirit of that referred to.
Pee CueiaM. There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.