21 Ind. App. 250 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1898
In the appellee’s complaint against the appellant it was shown that the appellee and one Julia F. Thorn were married on the 4th of January, 1879, and that they lived together as husband and wife from that date until the 12th of September, 1896; that four children were born to them, one of whom had died, and two girls and a boy still survived; that during that period he provided his said wife with
It is contended that upon a motion of the appellant
In discussing the action of the court in overruling a demurrer to the complaint for want of sufficient facts, it is claimed that the complaint shows that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations, that it appears from the complaint that whatever damage was done was accomplished more than two years before the commencement of the action. This claim in argument is based upon the statement in the complaint, that “about four years ago the defendant began to poison the mind” of the appellee’s wife. But it appears from the complaint that the in
It is further objected that the complaint is bad for want of an averment that the appellant had knowledge of the marital relation between the appellee and his wife. The averment that the appellant had knowingly, purposely and maliciously alienated the affection of the appellee’s wife from him, and broken Up his family, taken in connection with the preceding averments of the complaint, fully obviates any objection to the pleading upon such ground.
There were two trials of the cause, and it is assigned that the court erred upon the first trial in overruling the appellant’s motion for judgment in his favor upon the special verdict rendered by the jury at that trial; also, that it erred in sustaining appellee’s motion after the first trial for a venire de novo. The special verdict on the first trial, consisting of interrogatories and answers, was defective. It contained much evidence against the appellant, with some inconsistencies. It was so ambiguous and uncertain, that we think it was not error to grant a venire de novo. If we are right in this conclusion, there could be no error in refusing judgment for the appellant upon the special verdict.
Counsel for appellant have criticised one of the instructions to the jury. When considered in connec