Case Name: BOUKNIGHT v. LESTER (Two Cases)
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-11-04
Citations: 119 S.C. 466
Docket Number: 10747
Parties: BOUKNIGHT v. LESTER (Two Cases)
Judges: Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 466–480

Head Matter:
10747
BOUKNIGHT v. LESTER (Two Cases)
(112 S. E. 274)
1. Theatres and Shows — In Action for Causing Patrons to Leave Theatre, Defendant Not Entitled to Directed Verdict. — Where a husband and wife left a theatre at the request of the manager because one of the tickets upon which they had obtained admission had been purchased by the husband the previous week, and under a rule of the theatre tickets were honored only on the day of their purchase, in separate actions against the proprietor motions to direct verdicts for defendant were properly refused.
2. Theatres and Shows — Where Buyer’s Attention Not Called to Rule That Ticket Was Valid Only on Day of Purchase Not Bound by It. — Where the attention of a buyer of a moving picture ticket was not called to the rule of the theatre that tickets were not honored except on the day of their purchase, and the price was not refunded, the buyer was entitled to use the ticket at any time. (Per Watts, J., and Gary, C. J.)
3. Trial — In Action for Wrongful Ejectment of Patrons Where Jury Disregarded Instructions, Verdict Set Aside. — In separate actions tried together by husband and wife for wrongful ejectment from a theatre where the husband purchased and handled the tickets, and the Court instructed the jury that one of the tickets was good and the other was bad, the jury having returned verdicts for both plaintiffs, the verdict for the husband should be set aside. (Per Watts, J., and Gary, C. J.)
Before WharEy, J., County Court, Richland, December, 1920.
Judgment for Alma G. Bouknight affirmed; for J. T. Bouknight, reversed.
Two actions by Alma G. Bouknight and J. T. Bouknight against L. T. Lester. Judgment for both plaintiffs and defendant appeals.
The eighth exception was as follows:
8. In ’that the trial Court was in error in permitting both plaintiffs to testify over objection of defendant’s counsel as to their injured feelings and humiliation, such testimony being not only a conclusion, but being improper to submit to a jury as to how the alleged acts might have affected these plaintiffs. The question was not how the alleged acts might have affected two single individuals, but the jury should have been left to determine whether the acts complained of would have humiliated or embarrassed the ordinary person who might have entered the theatre in question, and the plaintiffs should not have been allowed to express any opinion or give any conclusions as to how the alleged acts affected them individually. The trial Court was in error in so finding and holding.
Messrs. Thomas & Lumpkin, for appellant,
cite: Admission of testimony by plaintiffs as to injured feelings and effect on them personally was error: 69 S. C., 535; 57 S. C., 330; 62 So., 404; L. R. A. 1915-B., 1*119.. Theatre. ticket is a revocable license: 13 M. & W., 838; 71 Am. Dec., 745; 79 Am. Dec., 717; 12 Mo. App., 141; 52 Am. Rep., 698; 73 Pac., 1050; 21 Ene. PI. & Prac., 647; L. R. A. 1916-E., 250; 189 N. Y., 180; 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1188; 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 204. No recovery for mental suffering without bodily injury: 69 S. C., 531; 90 S. C., 513; 57 S. C., 331; 185 S. W., 692.
Messrs. J. S. Verner, A. W. Holman and A. F. Spigner, for respondents,
cite: Plaintiffs at least entitled to price of tickets and directed verdict for. defendant would have been improper: 75 S. C., 74. Humiliation and' embarrassment should have been covered by request to charge: 113 S. C., 86. Sufficient evidence of invasion of plaintiffs’ rights: 105 S. C., 19; 54 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119; 36 N. Y. Supp., 949; 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 206; 10 Ann. Cas., 722; 108 S. C., 151; Sedg. Damages (8th Ed.) 67.
November 4, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an appeal from judgments entered in Coünty Court for Richland County. The two cases were tried together, and the jury rendered a verdict in each case for $500.00 actual damages. At the close of the evidence a motion was made for a directed verdict by the defendant, which was refused. After verdicts were rendered a motion for a new trial was made, which was refused.
The exceptions are 11. The first seven exceptions complain of error in not directing a verdict in favor of the defendant on the whole case. These exceptions are overruled. There was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury. His Honor in his charge was more favorable to the defendant than defendant was entitled to have charged. His Honor charged that the rule made by the defendant was a reasonable one, that a ticket presented on the day other than called for on the ticket was bad, and that the holder was not entitled to have it honored.
The defendant had the right to make any reasonable rule for the governance of his business, but when he was dealing with the public it was his duty to call the attention of the public to any special rule or regulation that he had adopted in order to bind them. When he sold the ticket to Bouknight, it was the duty of the seller to call the buyer's attention to a special rule or regulation adopted; otherwise the buyer could use the ticket at any time, unless refunded.
But the jury was bound to take the law as charged by his Honor. He charged the jury that one ticket was bad and the other good. It was one transaction, the plaintiffs were husband and wife, the husband purchased the tickets, and it must be presumed he was in possession of the tickets when they entered and he delivered them to the doorkeeper. In his Honor's charge, that one ticket was good and the other bad, the jury was not justified in finding a verdict for each for $500.00. Under his Honor's charge one was there on a void ticket, unlawfully there subject'to being asked to get out. We do not see that the exceptions should be sustained, but we do think his Honor was in error in not setting aside one verdict, for it was not in accordance with his charge, and it is the duty of the jury to take the law as charged by the Judge.
Inasmuch as the record discloses that the husband purchased and handled the tickets, the judgment obtained by him is reversed, and the judgment rendered in favor of Alma G. Bouknight is affirmed.
Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.