Court Opinion

ID: 9826302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:44:26.72365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:00.189595
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. JusticF Watts.
This is an action for damages, and was tried before Judge Bowman and a jury, on October 17, 1921, in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland county. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $724 actual and $476 punitive damages. After entry of judgment, defendant appeals. Exception 1 complains that his Honor failed to declare to the jury the law applicable to the case at bar, and in doing so violated the pro-, visions of Section 26, Art. 5, of the Constitution of the State.
This exception is overruled, for the reason, if defendant desired any additional charge submitted to the jury, he should have directed the Court’s attention to same. State v. Stevens, 106 S. C., 272; 91 S. E., 302.
Exception 2 was not argued by appellant’s counsel before us, but the Court did not say anything about implied warranty, and this exception is overruled.
Exception 3 complains of the admission of evidence over objection on the part of his Honor. This exception is overruled; the testimony was responsive to the allegations of the complaint, and to the issues as made by the pleadings.
Exception 4 is overruled under the opinion of Chief Justice Gary in Sullivan v. Calhoun, 117 S. C., 137; 108 S. E., 189, a recent decision of this Court.
*222Exception 5 is overruled, as that was for the jury’s determination under the evidence in the case.
Exception 6 is overruled under Sullivan v. Calhoun, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Ci-ilee Justice Gary and Justice Cothran concur.