139 Mo. App. 677 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1910
Action for $10,000 damages for breach of promise with seduction alleged as aggravation. Trial by jury, verdict for plaintiff for $800, and defendant has appealed.
Error is assigned in the exclusion of testimony offered by defendant and in instructions given for plain
In view of the fact that upon the undisputed testimony and the admission of defendant, he had promised the parents of this young woman to look after her conduct, and had violated that obligation in the most reprehensible manner possible, and yet the jury only assessed plaintiff’s damages at $800, our conclusion is that the
The instructions complained of told the jury that if they found for the plaintiff they should assess her damages “at whatever amount they may believe from the testimony she has sustained, not to exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars.”
That in determining the amount of damages plaintiff is entitled to, they should take into consideration the injury to plaintiff’s feelings, affections and wounded pride, as well as loss of marriage, and, if they believed that by virtue of the promise of marriage defendant seduced the pláintiff, then they might take that fact into consideration as an aggravation of damages.
Complaint is now made that the word “seduced” was not defined in the instructions. The defendant objected to these instructions in a general way only. He did not call the court’s attention in any way to the fact that the term “seduced” had not been defined in the instructions. A general objection to an instruction is not sufficient to call the court’s attention to the fact that a word used in the instruction should be defined. If defendant wanted this term defined he should have prepared an instruction properly defining it and asked the court to give it to the jury. Having failed to do so he cannot now complain. The instructions fairly declared the law and the evidence is ample to sustain the verdict. The judgment is affirmed.