Case Name: DORNSIFE v. RALSTON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1908-10-20
Citations: 55 Or. 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: DORNSIFE v. RALSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 254–263

Head Matter:
On motion to strike bill of exceptions from the files, decided October 20, 1908.
Argued on the merits December 14, 1909, decided January 11, 1910.
DORNSIFE v. RALSTON.
[97 Pac. 713 ; 106 Pac. 13.]
Appeal and Error—Bill of Exceptions—Motion to Strike.
1. Where a bill of exceptions was settled at the instance of the counsel for respondent, the latter could not take advantage of the fact that it did .not comply with the law, and could not maintain a motion to strike the bill.
Assault and Battery—Evidence—Admissibility—Malice.
2. In an action for assault and battery, evidence of a subsequent assault made on plaintiff by defendant’s son, not a continuance or a part of the assault of defendant, and not committed when defendant was present, aiding or abetting, is inadmissible to prove malice.
Pleading—Distinct Causes of Action—Separate Statement.
3. A cause of action for assault and battery committed by one as agent of another is separate from a cause of action for a prior disconnected assault committed by the latter personally and a separate cause of action against the latter for the assault by the agent must be set forth in the-complaint in the action against the latter for the assault personally committed by him, or an independent action must be commenced against the latter and his agent as joint tort-feasors for the assault committed by the agent.
Trial—Opening Statement—Evidence to Rebut.
4. In an action for assault and battery committed on a designated date, the opening statement of defendant’s counsel relating to a subsequent assault committed by defendant’s son on plaintiff, did not render evidence of the assault committed by the son admissible.
Trial—Objections to Evidence—Waiver.
5. A-waiver of objections to evidence by withdrawing the objections after the evidence has been received must be so specific as to leave no doubt on the subject, and a mere statement by counsel objecting to incompetent evidence, made after the evidence had been received, that he was willing to try the issue to which the evidence related, did not show a waiver of the objections.
Afpfal and Error—Erroneous Admission of Evidence—Correction by Instructions.
6. In an action for assault and battery, the error in admitting evidence of a subsequent and independent assault committed by defendant’s son, was not cured by a charge that plaintiff must recover on the allegations of the complaint, and could not recover on anything outside of that.
Assault and Battery—Civil Liability—Complaint.
7. In an action for assault and battery, it is permissible to plead the circumstances accompanying the act and that constitute a part of the occur! ence, so as to show the purpose and extent of the injury.
Assault and Battery—Civil Liability—Complaint.
8. A complaint in an action for assault and battery, which alleges that plaintiff was in the lawful possession of real estate inclosed by a fence with a gate therein, that defendant maliciously fastened the gate, thereby imprisoning plaintiff and others visiting her; that it became necessary for plaintiff to remove the obstruction; that while she was doing so defendant assaulted her, etc.,—is not demurrable because alleging facts relating to real estate, as such facts are set forth by way of inducement leading up to the main charge.
From Multnomah: Thomas O’Day, Judge.
This is an action by Hattie Dornsife against L. 0. Ralston to recover for injuries received from an assault and the necessary medical treatment resulting therefrom,, From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Motion to strike from the files a bill of exceptions.
Overruled.
Mr. Samuel T. Richardson and Mr. Grant B. Dimick for the motion.
Mr. Joel M. Long, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion
per Curiam.
1.
This is a motion to strike a bill of exceptions from the files. From the affidavit, submitted at the hearing, it appears that, within the time allowed by the court below, appellant tendered a proposed bill of exceptions, consisting of 53 pages, but respondent's counsel were not satisfied therewith, and when the matter came on for hearing before the trial judge, one of them moved to substitute, in lieu of the bill as prepared by appellant, a complete transcript of the stenographer's notes of the trial, amounting to 213 pages, which was done accordingly, and such transcript was certified to by the trial judge as for a bill of exceptions. It was also stipulated at the time that the original bill, as thus settled should he sent up with the transcript in place of á certified copy thereof. Respondent now moves to strike the bill from the files, because it does not comply in form with the requirements of the statute and the decision of this Court; but, as it was settled in its present form at the instance of her counsel, she cannot be permitted to take advantage thereof.
Decided January 11,1910.
[106 Pac. 13.]
The motion to strike out is overruled.
Overruled.