Title: Hargis v. Horrine
Citation: 323 S.W.2d 917
Docket Number: 5-1761
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 1959

323 S.W.2d 917 (1959) Beatrice HARGIS, Appellant, v. Woodrow HORRINE and Kate Horrine, Appellees. No. 5-1761. Supreme Court of Arkansas. May 4, 1959. Rehearing Denied June 1, 1959. Murphy &amp; Burch, Fayetteville, Jeff Duty, Rogers, for appellant. Greenhaw &amp; Greenhaw, Rex W. Perkins and Thomas Pearson, Fayetteville, for appellees. HARRIS, Chief Justice. Appellant, Beatrice Hargis, and appellees, husband and wife, are residents of Madison County. On June 2, 1957, Mrs. Hargis and Mrs. Horrine engaged in a physical altercation, following a fight between their husbands. Subsequently, appellant instituted suit against both appellees, alleging that each of the appellees assaulted her, inflicted painful and permanent injuries to her body and prayed judgment against Horrine and wife, jointly and severally, in the amount of $11,000. A general denial was filed by the Horrines, and the cause proceeded to trial on February 20, 1958. The jury returned a verdict for appellees, and the court entered its judgment dismissing the complaint. From such judgment, comes this appeal. Only one point is raised in urging a reversal, viz., "The court was in error in the giving of Instruction # 6." The proof reflected that the two families were neighbors, and had previously disagreed about some property lines. On June 2nd, Hargis was riding on his horse, and Horrine stopped him in the road. After some words, the two engaged in a fight, in which Hargis was worsted. According *918 to Horrine's testimony, appellant arrived upon the scene and said: Mrs. Hargis testified that Horrine either hit her with a rock or handed one to his wife. Horrine denied this, though he stated that he picked up a rock because Mr. Hargis had done likewise. According to Horrine, he and Hargis stood there, side by side and "let them fight it out." The only eye witnesses to the occurrence were the Hargises, and the appellees and their son, Doyle. Conflicting versions were offered by the participants as to who started the trouble, but Doyle testified: After the encounter, appellant was examined by Dr. Charles Beebe, who testified that she was bleeding profusely from a scalp wound; that he took 7 or 8 stitches, and continued to treat her, giving appellant a shot of estrogen every two weeks; that in his opinion, she had a permanent nerve injury. Wilda Wilson, a nurse at Washington County Hospital, stated that Mrs. Hargis appeared to be in pain and was unconscious when she went in to take care of her; "* * * her head was hurt. It was bandaged; I couldn't see that, but she was black and blue just all over." Dr. Jeff Baggett testified that in his opinion, appellant suffered a brain injury as a result of the fight. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court instructed the jury as to the applicable law; included in such instructions was Instruction No. 6, which is alleged by *919 appellant to be inherently wrong, and prejudicial error. Instruction No. 6 reads as follows: The italicized portion of the instruction was certainly erroneous. As stated in American Jurisprudence, Vol. 4, Sec. 4, page 127: See also 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 27, p. 830. Numerous cases are cited in both of these authoritative works in support of this principle of law. Appellees contend, however, that even though the instruction be erroneous, the matter became moot when the jury returned their verdict in favor of Mrs. Horrine; i. e., Woodrow Horrine could not be guilty of an unlawful act if Kate Horrine was found blameless. In other words, the jury found that Mrs. Horrine was not guilty of an assault, and Mr. Horrine, accordingly, could only have encouraged an innocent party. As stated in their brief, "Under these circumstances, how could one who is alleged to have assisted and aided the active participant in an assault be guilty of such aid and encouragement when the active participant has been absolved of all liability therein?" While this argument, at first blush, seems rather logical, we are convinced, after a study of numerous cases, that such position is unsound and without merit. Woodrow Horrine's possible liability was not secondary to that of Mrs. Horrine, i. e., it was not derived from, nor dependent upon Mrs. Horrine's alleged culpability. As stated in 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 27, p. 832: We are of the view that the jury could, had it been given the proper instruction, and so desired, have cleared Mrs. Horrine of liability and still found against the husband. *920 Each could have been held liable, independent of the acts of the other. For instance, the jury could have found that Mrs. Horrine, in good faith, thought that she was about to be attacked, and defended herself, or even that Mrs. Hargis struck the first blowor being unable to determine which was the aggressor, found for the defendant (appellee). Though reaching this conclusion, the jury still could have rendered a verdict against Mr. Horrine, finding that he encouraged and prompted his wife to enter the affray, when he could have as easily sent her back home. Certainly it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the jury, if properly instructed, could have found the injuries suffered by Mrs. Hargis resulted from the "sicking on" of his wife by Woodrow Horrine. We find this view many times expressed. In Knott v. Litton, La.App., 81 So. 2d 124, 126, Mrs. Knott brought suit against David Litton and wife for injuries sustained from being beaten with a stick by Mrs. Litton. Due to illness of Mrs. Litton at the time of trial, a continuance was granted to her, and the case proceeded against Mr. Litton. The proof reflected that Litton and Mrs. Knott were arguing about the fact that Litton's cattle had been running on Mrs. Knott's property. Litton proceeded to "bawl her out", and threatened to kill her dog. It was established he made the statement that if she were a man or he a woman, he would whip her. Litton proceeded to his residence, and returned in a few minutes with his wife, who picked up a green sweet gum sprout, several feet long, and beat Mrs. Knott over the body. When neighboring ladies attempted to come to Mrs. Knott's assistance, Mr. Litton told the ladies to "leave them alone." Judgment was rendered against Litton, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, in affirming, stated: In our own case of Gordon v. McLearn, 123 Ark. 496, 185 S.W. 803, 805, the McLearn brothers instituted suit against Gordon and R. B. Malin for malicious prosecution, it being alleged that Gordon and Malin conspired together to cause the arrest and prosecution of appellees on the false charge of having removed and disposed of two bales of cotton, upon which Gordon held a landlord's lien. Appellees' proof reflected that the McLearns sold the bales of cotton to Malin, and Gordon represented to Malin that the cotton was subject to his lien, and he had forbidden the removal of same until his rent was paid. Gordon and Malin went together to the Justice of Peace, who issued the warrant of arrest, though only Malin signed the affidavit for warrant. The McLearns were arrested. Malin became convinced that appellees had committed no wrong, and so advised the prosecuting attorney, who ordered dismissal of the criminal charge. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Malin, but rendered judgment against Gordon. Gordon appealed, contending that the verdict of the jury in Malin's favor required his own discharge as well. In rejecting such contention, this Court said: See also Haughton v. Pierce Petroleum Corp., 178 Ark. 917, 13 S.W.2d 26. In Leech v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 189 Ark. 161, 71 S.W.2d 467, 468, Mrs. Leach brought suit in her representative capacity against appellee, seeking damages in the amount of $45,000 for the benefit of herself, as widow, and her son, and for $5,000 for the benefit of the estate of her deceased husband, alleging that her husband's death was caused by the negligence of appellee. The jury returned a verdict for the benefit of the estate in the sum of $3,750, but made no further finding. A judgment was accordingly entered for that amount, but the judgment further provided: In an opinion written by the late Mr. Justice Humphreys, this Court said: See also Milum v. Clark, 225 Ark. 1040, 287 S.W.2d 460. The facts in the instant litigation were in dispute, and under these holdings, we think the jury could have found either for or against the husband or wife, though reaching a contrary verdict as to the liability of each. The court's erroneous instruction could have prevented any verdict against Mr. Horrine, and it is our duty to *922 reverse unless it clearly appears that the error was harmless. Conway v. Coursey, 110 Ark. 557, 161 S.W. 1030. As was held in Neal v. Brandon, 70 Ark. 79, 66 S.W. 200, an erroneous instruction is presumed to have been prejudicial until the contrary is shown. The judgment in favor of Kate Horrine is affirmed, but it is reversed as to Woodrow Horrine, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. [1] Emphasis supplied.