Court Opinion

ID: 9828802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:44:46.219703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.238341
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Motion for Rehearing.
This motion presents only one question which we deem it necessary to further discuss. In the original opinion, in disposing of the Fifth assignment of error, it is stated that:
“If the defendants had offered to show that immediately at or somewhere'near the time of the issuance of the document complained of a son of the plaintiff had been convicted of an offense and sent to the penitentiary, it may he that such testimony would have been admissible as bearing upon the plaintiff’s mental humiliation and-loss of customers, but an affirmative answer to tile question would not have elicited such testimony, and therefore we hold that no reversible error is shown.”
In the motion for rehearing, attention is called to the fact that appellants stated to the court that they expected to show that a son of the plaintiff was convicted and sent to the penitentiary about the time of the publication of the document complained of, and that the son referred to was a member of the plaintiff’s family.
The bill does not show that the proof referred to was offered at the time the court sustained the objection to the question, but we have reached the conclusion that the bill is sufficient to require this court to determine whether or not the appellants had the right to prove that a son of plaintiff, at the time referred to, had been convicted of a felony and sent to the penitentiary; and our conclusion is that such testimony was too remote, and was properly excluded. Appellee sued for, and the charge of the court in fact limited his recovery to, compensation for injuries sustained by him on account of the publication complained of. Those injuries were alleged to be loss of business by appellee, and humiliation and distress of mind suffered by him on account of the issuance of the defamatory document referred to.
The trial court instructed the jury to find what amount of damages would compensate the plaintiff for the injuries, if any, received by him by the publication and circulation of the circular in question; and the answer of the jury was $1,000. The court also instructed the jury that in estimating such damages, they might take into consideration any pecuniary loss, Or loss of business, if any, that the plaintiff had suffered or might suffer in the future as a direct and proximate result of the publication of said circular, and also any mental anguish or humiliation which he suffered as a direct and proximate result of the publication referred to.
That was a correct charge, and by necessary implication it limited the measure of damages to compensation to the plaintiff for injuries done by the publication of the document referred to. If plaintiff was caused mental suffering or loss of business on account of the fact that his son had been sent to the penitentiary, if such facts had been proved, the jury must have understood from the court’s charge that no compensation could be awarded in this case because of such injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Besides, there was no proof tending to show that the plaintiff was in any wise to blame for his son’s commission of the felony, and therefore, in the absence of affirmative proof showing such fact, we do not think it should be presumed that the fact of the son’s committing such an offense and being sent to the penitentiary therefor would necessarily result in injury to the plaintiff’s business; therefore, we have reached the conclusion that the testimony referred to was too remote, and that the court did not err in excluding it.
The other questions presented in the motion have been duly considered, and are decided against apnellants.
Motion overruled.