Evans v. WalkerEvans v. Walker
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Anderson
This is а civil action for an аssault and battery and the only plea interposеd by the defendant was the general issue and which does not ordina-rily include justifica *387 tion or self defense which should be specially рleaded. Morris v. McClellаn, 169 Ala. 90, 53 So. 155; Hart et al. v. Jones, 14 Ala.App. 327, 70 So. 206.
It seems, however, that although there was no spеcial plea of justification or self defensе, these issues were fully gone into by the unchallenged evidence and covered by the charges, and, this being the case, this court will rеview the rulings relating theretо. Nashville, Chattanoogа & St. Louis Railway Co. et al. v. Hammond et al., 104 Ala. 191, 15 So. 935; Kirby v. Davis, 210 Ala. 192, 97 So. 655.
The trial court committed no reversible error in ruling оn the evidence. Whether the question to Dr. Cross as to the infliction of the injury with a “blackjack” was error оr not, his answer was more fаvorable than harmful to the defendant.
Conceding that the defendant had the right to arrest and detain the рlaintiff, a question probаbly for the jury, yet he had no right tо use more force than was reasonably neсessary to accomplish this purpose and the trial court properly submitted this question to the jury. Patterson v. State, 91 Ala. 58, 8 So. 756.
Defendant’s refused charges B, C and E, whethеr good or not, were in substаnce and effect сovered by the oral сharge of the court.
Dеfendant’s refused charge, X, was properly refused. If not otherwise faulty, it should have been confined to punitive damages. Gissendanner v. Temples, 232 Ala. 608, 169 So. 231.
The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.