125 S.E. 178 | N.C. | 1924
The plaintiffs brought suit to recover damages for assault and battery. The two cases were tried together, and the following verdicts were returned:
Charlie Smith v. June Myers and Roy Myers. Did the defendants unlawfully and wrongfully assault the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes. What actual damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: Ten cents. What punitive damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: Twenty-five cents.
J. Mack Smith v. June Myers. Did the defendant unlawfully and wrongfully assault the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes. What actual damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: Thirty cents. What punitive damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: One cent.
Judgment. Appeal by plaintiffs. The plaintiff in the first case offered in evidence the record in a criminal action against Roy Myers to show that this defendant had pleaded guilty of the assault set out in the complaint and had been fined; and the plaintiff in the second case offered to prove upon the cross-examination of D.C. Craver, a witness for the defendant, the substance of the verdict in S. v. June Myers. The evidence was excluded in each instance and the plaintiffs excepted.
The record does not disclose what the witness Craver would have testified as to the verdict and for this reason, if for no other, the latter exception is without merit. Hosiery Co. v. Express Co.,
The second issue in the first action was answered in favor of the plaintiff; and the exclusion of the record in S. v. Roy Myers was harmless unless the evidence was competent in aggravation of punitive damages. In our opinion it was not competent for this purpose. Vindictive or punitive damages are treated as an award by way of punishment to the offender and as a warning to other wrongdoers; they are not allowed as a matter of course, but only when there are some features of aggravation, as willfulness, malice, rudeness, oppression, or a reckless and wanton disregard of the plaintiff's rights. Hodges v. Hall,
The proposed evidence was properly excluded; but there is an error in the judgment.
All the issues in each case were answered in favor of the plaintiff. In each case the plaintiff was properly allowed costs to the amount of his recovery; but it was adjudged also "that the defendant recover of the plaintiff the defendant's costs."
At common law neither party to a civil action recovered costs and each paid his own witnesses; but now the recovery of costs is entirely dependent upon statutory provisions. Costin v. Baxter,
The judgment in each case is modified by striking out the recovery against the plaintiff of the defendant's costs, and as modified is affirmed. In each case the cost of the appeal will be divided between the parties.
Modified and affirmed.