248 N.W. 43 | Minn. | 1933
Plaintiff told defendant that she would tell her husband of his conduct, and he told her if she did he would foreclose his mortgage and asked her which she would like better, to lose everything, including her household goods, or to keep still.
Of course we are required to accept the facts as reflected by the verdict. The jury awarded plaintiff a verdict in the sum of $4,500.
1. Plaintiff has always been excitable. The assault made her nervous, and she has not since been in good health. It made her worry. She was humiliated. She was necessarily much shocked by defendant's bold purpose, sinister and black. To her he was a despoiler. The character of the assault and the persistency and repetition with renewed vigor after defendant knew his advances were unwelcome permits and authorizes the award of punitive damages. There was no serious physical violence, but a woman of proper conduct, as this plaintiff apparently was, has the right to keep her body inviolable. The verdict carries punitive damages. The jury undoubtedly intended a verdict, which has the approval of the trial court, to be some punishment. We find nothing in the record to require or justify our disturbing the amount thereof. We cannot say that it is excessive.
2. Appellant now complains that many irrelevant and prejudicial matters were injected into the evidence, but we are of the *559 opinion that the major portion of these had their origin in questions asked by defendant's counsel. None were serious, and when all are considered they are insufficient to warrant our granting a new trial. Discussion of each is unnecessary.
In November, 1930, defendant went to plaintiff's home at a time when a Mrs. Jahnke and her two children were in the house with plaintiff. Plaintiff and Mrs. Jahnke testified at the trial, over defendant's objection, that when they saw defendant come on the premises they locked the door to the house and took the children and went upstairs; that defendant went to the machine shed and other places and came to the door and knocked, but they did not answer; he being at the farm 10 or 15 minutes. The objection was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, self-serving and prejudicial. Ordinarily, this testimony should have been excluded. Perhaps it would have been better had it been excluded in this case. It was obvious, however, to the court that there was to be a sharp conflict in the testimony of plaintiff and defendant, and under such circumstances much must be left to the discretion of the trial court. It was held in Glassberg v. Olson,
Affirmed.
OLSEN, JUSTICE, took no part. *560