Plaintiff and a companion went to a public watering trough in the little village of New Trier, Minnеsota, to water a span of horses and some cows. While there, defendants аpproached them. Defendant Pasch, stating he had something unsettled with plaintiff, took the halter ropes out of his hands and gave them to Landsberger. Thereupon, according to plaintiff’s evidence, Pasch gave plaintiff a push, threw him down, pounded him with his fists, аnd bit a piece out of his ear; Landsberger did not touch plaintiff, but called to Pasch to “give it to him” when plaintiff was down and being beaten; and Landsberger, with an oath, told a young man, who evidently came up to help plaintiff .or stop the fight, to get away or hе, Landsberger, “would take care of him.”
The assignments of error question the rulings рermitting testimony that Pasch, after this action was begun, conveyed an 80-acre farm of the value of $3,200 to his mother in payment of an alleged loan of only three or four hundred dollars; also the admission of the complaint docket entries and plea in relation to the prosecution of Pasch in the justice court. As to the transaсtion with the farm, we think it of some value as indicating that Pasch felt he had done a wrong, to redress which he expected that his property might be resorted tp. We think it perfеctly clear that his plea in justice court was an admission that he was the aggressоr in the affray. The complaint and docket entries were properly received as something to which the plea connected or responded. No seрarate objection to the evidence was made in behalf of Landsberger. Nоr was any request made to instruct the jury that the above matters should be considered оnly with reference to the guilt of Pasch, and could not be used in determining that of Landsberger.
The alleged error in the charge relating to separate verdicts against defendants in different amounts need not be considered, for the verdict was the same against both. Hence, even if the charge were erroneous, it could not have been prejudicial.
We cannot concur in the contention that there is no evidence to sustain a verdict against Landsberger. If he told Pasch to “give it” to plaintiff, and drove away those who might have gone to plain
The only troublesome feature of the case is the amount of the verdiсt. The four young men at the watering trough were of the same age, 22 years old. They lived in or near the little village and seemed to have been friends theretofore. The rеcord does not intimate what Pasch’s grievance was, except as we may infеr it to be fancied from the fact that defendants came from a “soft drink” dispensary. Plаintiff suffered no serious or permanent injury, unless the piece out of the ear was noticeable disfigurement. The ear was exhibited to the jury and the trial court; the recоrd does not convey to us any clear idea of its condition or appeаrance. The jury were also at liberty to include punitive damages. In Maynard v. Keough,
Affirmed.