Year: 1866




Knoxville, the following important de-
cision YVES delivered, which is appli-
cable to, perhaps, a large number of
similar cases in East Tennessee. The
ruling of several cf the Circuit Judges
in that section on the point involved, are
thus reversed, and a wholesome rule laid
down for the guidance of juries:


SAMSON WILLIAM u.s. ISAAC GAINS.


This is an action of trespass brought in
the Circuit Court for the county Of Hancock,
by the defendant in error, for an assault and
battery for injury done to the property and
person Of the defendant in error; the decla-
ration contains but one count which AYERS
the plaintiff in error did beat. bruise and
imprison him, and by reason of threats
forced him to leave his home and flee to the
State Of Kentucky, whereby his dwelling
house and other property was destroyed; the
plea of not guilty was filed to the declara-
ton it appears from the proofin 1861, the
defendant with fifteen or twenty other men
came intothe town of Sneadsville much ex-
cited, and some one in the crowd said to the
defendant in error ifhe did not get down on
his hu1va they would cut off his head
they had come 10 drive the Lincolnites out
of the town the defendant uld not gvt
down as commanded. There was much
abusive language used by the crowd, of
which the plaintiff in error formed a part
there was no blows or other injury inflicted
on the defendant in error, or any attempt
or offer to inaict any injury upon them.


Shortly thereafter the defendant left the
crowd and returned home; in few days he
went to the State of Kentucky, joined the
Federal army and was absent three years;
during his absence his dwelling and out
houses were destroyed there is no proof the
plaintiff in error had any agency in the
destruction of the property; on the trial of
the cause the counsel for the plaintiff in er-
ror objected to the proof going to the jury,
of the defendant going to Kentucky, and
the destruction of his property, unless the
plaintiff was connected with it. The OBJ
lection was overruled and the evidence per
mitted to go TO the jury. The court among
other things not excepted TO, charged the
Jury "if the plaintiff in error or the mob, or
any one Of them while so assembled, by
their acts, menaCes or threats caused the de-
fendant in error TO leave his home and
friends, and while absent his property was
destroyed, the plaintiff in error will be liable
for the destruction, provided you are salts
fed from the testimony that the defendant
in error could have ssved his property if he
could have remained at home"


A verdict and judgment was rendered in
favor Of the defendant in error for 81 600; a
new trial was moved for and obtained; the
plaintiff in error has appealed to this court
The charge Of the court is erroneous. This
being an action for an assault and battery,
the defendant in error could only recover
such special damages rs are strictly the con-
sequences of the trespass committed. The
acts done must constitute a part of one GER
tain transacticn, Of which the principal tres
pass was the commencement-4th Hump.
lS4. The court erred in permitting the
proof to go to the jury, that the defendant
had left for the State of Kentucky, and the
subsequent destruction of his property, un-
less it appeared it was part of the original
trespass, and our transaction, and the plant
i'll in error was present aiding and abetting
in the destruction of the property. From an
examination of this record, there is no proof
to sustain the verdict of the jury. The
plaintiff in error was in a crowd Of men,
when violent and abusive language was used
TO the defendant in error by some one in the
crowd. He was not otherwise molested or
disturbed. No assault or battery was COM
mttted on his person, or other injury done
him. A few davs thereafter he left his home
for Kentucky. During his absence his home
and buildings were destroyed,


There is no proof the plaintiff in error
had any agency whatever in the destruction
of the property, nor is there any proof that
he molested or used violent language TO the
defendant in error. He was with the crowd
who used the offensive epithets, and If any
injury had been done the defendant in error
bv any party with which the plaintiff IN
error was associated, they having assembled
for an unlawful purpose, the plaintiff IN
eror would have been responsible for the
consequences.


1t is settled principle Of this Court, If
| there is any evidence TO sustain the verdict,
it will not be disturbed. In this case there
is total want of evidence. II ought to
have been set aside, and new trial granted.
/ A large discretion is vested in the Circuit
| Judge in such cases, aud where the verdict
| is not sustained by the proof il ought to be
set aside. The peace and quiet Of the coun-
/ try greatly depends upon theproper exercise
/ Of this discretion, and never before in the
history Of our country has it been so import
ant for the Circuit Judges Of the State to so
assidously guard the trial by jury, and see
that il does not become a means Of opRres-
sion rather than justice. Unless the verdict
is sustained by proof it ought not, IN any
/ case, 10 stand.


The judgment is reversed, and new trial
| awarded SHACKEIFoRD, Judge.


A true copy. Test:


NJ l. PATTERSON, Clerk.