{ "id": 8721336, "name": "Union Compress Company v. Wolf", "name_abbreviation": "Union Compress Co. v. Wolf", "decision_date": "1896-11-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "174", "last_page": "177", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "63 Ark. 174" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "58 Ark. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 Wis. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8705423 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/44/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 N. H. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 8711640 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324-5" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nh/41/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Mo. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 953754 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/112/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 S. W. 614", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "23 S. W. 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "26 S. W. 998", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "48 Ark. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "131" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "156 U. ,S. 361", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1488099 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/us/156/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ark. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1887730 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/48/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Ark. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1329174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/58/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ark. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902303 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/61/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Wis. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8705423 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/44/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 N. H. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 8711640 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/41/0317-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 365, "char_count": 5736, "ocr_confidence": 0.572, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.1203407804082354e-07, "percentile": 0.8605878180542572 }, "sha256": "f5722cd0cf74b0aae40538c977298eda5074cc71e9dd6c9751ba639a73c013f2", "simhash": "1:90a1f052cedf780b", "word_count": 1023 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:38:35.777574+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Union Compress Company v. Wolf." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.\nThis is an action for damages alleged to have accrued to appellees through the negligence of appellant in storing- certain cotton of appellees. The answer denied all material allegations of the complaint.\nThe bill of exceptions shows that, \u201cin the opening argument for the plaintiff, the attorney for the plaintiff stated to the jury that counsel for the defendant had made an attack on one of the plaintiffs, and to show you how he is regarded in the county from which a change of venue was taken, I will read you the affidavit which was made by the defendant. Here the attorney was reminded by the court that he had no right to refer to that fact, or to read the affidavit; and, regardless of the instructions of the court, and over the objections of the defendant, the attorney, not reading the affidavit, further stated that the change of venue had been taken by the defendant from Jackson county, and that was a sufficient endorsement of the.plaintiff\u2019s character. To all of which the defendant excepted.\u201d \u201cIn the closing argument to the jury counsel for the plaintiff referred to the fact that this defendant was a corporation, said its name \u201cUnion\u201d implied that it had bought up all the compresses in the state, and was a monopoly, which said statement was unauthorised by the evidence in the case, and was done to prejudice the minds of the jury. To which statement defendant excepted.\u201d\nThis court in forceful language has often condemned conduct and statements of counsel in argument which were prejudicial, and not justified by the evidence. Some deliverances upon this subject have been quite recent. Sokal v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. K. Co., 61 Ark. 130; Holder v. State, 58 Ark. 473; Vaughan v. State, 58 Ark. 368.\nThe duty of trial courts under such circumstances has been clearly defined. The scope of legitimate argument has been plainly outlined, and should be well understood. See Little Rock & Fort Smith R. Co. v. Cavenesse, 48 Ark. 106, and authorities cited; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Sokol, 61 Ark. 130.\nIt only remains for us to determine, from the record in each case, whether the rules announced have been ignored. The remarks of the attorney for the ap-pellees on the subject of change of venue, after he had been told by the court that \u201che had no right to refer to that fact, or to read the affidavit,\u201d were exceedingly improper. Where counsel persevere in saying things that are not pertinent to the issue, and are prejudicial to the other party, the court in civil cases should see that they do not reap any benefit from such statements, even to the extent of setting aside a verdict in favor of the client of the attorney thus offending, if the court should deem that the prejudice cannot otherwise be overcome. There is not wanting high authority for th\u00e9 position that prejudicial statements made in argument are not removed by the rebuke of counsel and a direction of the court to disregard such statements. Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N. H. 317; Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282. Our court has not gone to that extent, but, as was said by us in Vaughan v. State, \u201cwe will not hesitate to reverse when it occurs to us that prejudice has resulted on account of improper argument,\u201d although the trial court may have endeavored to remove it. In this case the instruction of the court to the jury \u201cnot to consider or weigh in any manner the way in which this came to this( county for trial\u201d probably removed all-prejudice from the minds of the jury occasioned by the remarks of counsel as to the change of venue, and we would not reverse for this alone. But we are told in the bill of exceptions that the other remarks, to wit: \u201cThat the name \u201cUnion\u201d of the defendant implied that it had bought up all the compresses in the state, and was a mono-poly, were unauthorized by the evidence, and were made to prejudice the minds of the jury.\u201d If such was the purpose of the remarks, they certainly produced that effect, for they were clearly prejudicial; and as the case was closely balanced upon the facts that were in evidence, these that were not in evidence may have turned the scale in appellees\u2019 favor. Such at least was their tendency; and, in the absence of any showing that the jury were instructed by the court specifically to disregard these statements, we must hold that they were prejudicial, and for this error reverse the judgment, and remand the cause for new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. M. & J. W. Stayton and Morris M. Cohn for appellant.", "Joseph W. Philli-ps and M. M. Stuckey, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Union Compress Company v. Wolf.\nOpinion delivered November 7, 1896.\nTriae \u2014 Remark OE COUNSEL \u2014 A remark by plaintiff\u2019s counsel, in his argument to the jury, that the word \u201cUnion\u201d in the name of the defendant corporation implied that it had bought up all the compresses in the state, and was a monopoly, not being authorized by the evidence, is prejudicial error where the jury were not instructed to disregard such statement, and the case was closely balanced on the facts.\nAppeal from Independence Circuit Court.\nJohn B. McCaleb, Judge.\nJ. M. & J. W. Stayton and Morris M. Cohn for appellant.\n1. It was improper to permit counsel to use in argument the fact that defendant had taken a change of venue. 33 N. B. 1031.\n2. The statements by counsel in the closing argument were highly prejudicial, and justify a reversal. 156 U. ,S. 361; 48 Ark. 130, 131; 58 id. 368; 26 S. W. 998; 58 N. W. \u2022 1009; 23 S. W. 298; 26 id. 307; 33 N. B. 1031; 20 S. W. 614; 112 Mo. 390; 1 Thompson, Trials, secs. 966, 974, 976, 986; 41 N. H. 317, 324-5; 44 Wis. 282, 291.\nJoseph W. Philli-ps and M. M. Stuckey, for appellee.\n1. The court below properly instructed the jury not to regard the statements and remarks of counsel objected to, and this and the admonition of the court was sufficient to cure any seeming prejudice. 58 Ark. 483." }, "file_name": "0174-01", "first_page_order": 192, "last_page_order": 195 }