{ "id": 1500974, "name": "Davis v. Richardson", "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Richardson", "decision_date": "1905-07-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "348", "last_page": "352", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "76 Ark. 348" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "50 Mo. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 980506 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/50/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Wis. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8709140 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/24/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Wis. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 S. C. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 4377416 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/sc/16/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Md. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1800322 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/61/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Me. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 587831 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/80/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Dana, 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Dana", "case_ids": [ 5549986 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/36/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Fed. 913", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "67 Am. Dec. 560", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "19 Am. Rep. 319", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "45 Ark. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1892069 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/45/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1888703 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/47/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 Ark. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "69 Ark. 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 Ark. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1507825 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/71/0574-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ark. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1866007 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/23/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ark. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1507899 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/71/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ark. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720979 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/42/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1872466 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/36/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ark. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728480 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/15/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Ark. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727134 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/8/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Am. Rep. 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "Am. Rep.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "805" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "43 Ind. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1406930 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/43/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913401 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 Ark. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1898653 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/39/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. 653", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1872361 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221, 304" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/36/0653-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 Ark. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725068 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/18/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ark. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "15 Ark. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728064 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/15/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ark. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728220 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/13/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727514 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/10/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Ark. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727403 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/9/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ark. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "6 Ark. 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727516 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/6/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ark. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728542 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/1/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Ark. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724081 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/50/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ark. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "46 Ark. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1890484 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/46/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ark. 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885692 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ark. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1864584 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/25/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ark. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728174 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/13/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ark. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1866049 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/23/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720797 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Ark. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728129 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/13/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907398 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/64/0538-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 528, "char_count": 8667, "ocr_confidence": 0.711, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.963150438939477e-07, "percentile": 0.8497391160642956 }, "sha256": "ec969f4f18041cab1dd71e620a36c42c445d469058b792cc65c42911f753d67b", "simhash": "1:a90fb3a437822438", "word_count": 1508 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:37:18.445737+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Davis v. Richardson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Battue;, J.\nEliza Richardson, by her next friend, filed a complaint in the Stone Circuit Court, alleging that the defendant W. E. Davis, on the 27th day of April, 1902, assaulted her in his storehouse near St. James, in Stone County, in this State, by seizing and embracing her in a rude and indecent manner, in consequence of which she, being in feeble health, suffered a severe shock to her nervous system and much humiliation; and that before that, on the same day, he made m decent proposals to her at the house of Ed. Grigsby; and she claimed $8,000 damages.\nThe defendant denied all these allegations.\nIn the trial of the issue in the case the plaintiff, in part, testified that on the 17th day of April, 1902, she went to the defendant\u2019s store, and no one was there. She then went to Mrs. Grigsby\u2019s, and found her there and the defendant. After a short conversation Mrs. Grigsby left the room, and Davis then told her, the plaintiff, to go home through a certain hollow, and he would meet her there; that he had something to tell her. In a short time Mrs. Grigsby returned, and Davis left. In a short time after this, on the same day, she went to Davis\u2019s store to buy some goods, and he again said to her that he had something to tell her, and \u201cDon\u2019t you tell a thing about it; I will make it all right.\u201d Fie pulled, hugged and kissed her, \u201cand acted like he was going to do something else.\u201d She escaped, and, as she did so, he said, \u201cDon\u2019t you tell anything about it.\u201d At this time the plaintiff was fifteen years old.\nThe defendant, testifying, denied the conversation at Mrs. Grigsby\u2019s and the assault and coxiversation at the store.\nOther evidence was adduced.\nThe court, over the objections of the defendant, instructed the jury as follows:\n\u201c1 You are instructed that every person is the sole custo-, dian of his person, and no oxie has a right to touch it unlicensed^ and that any unlawful touchixig of the person of another constitutes an assault; and if you believe from the eviderxce in this case that the defendaxit, W. E. Davis, did make axi assault upon the person of Eliza Richardson by making use of any violent or indecent familiarity toward her, or embracing, touching or handling her person in an indecent manner, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff for such an amount as you believe she is entitled.\n\u201c2 That for every unlawful assault the law conclusively presumes some damage.\n\u201c3 That the law presumes'every female to be. chaste and virtuous.\n\u201c4 If a man takes improper liberties with a female, or-fondles her against her will and consent, he is guilty of indecent assault.\n\u201c5. If you find for plaintiff, in arriving at the amount of damage to which you think the plaintiff -is entitled, if you find that the assault was committed, you should take into consideration the actual damage sustained by reason of the assault, in which is included not merely the physical injury suffered, but: you may also consider the mental suffering, humiliation, mortification, and injury to her feelings and sensibilities, if such you find to be the consequence of the assault, together with the disgrace, insult, and indignity to which 'the plaintiff is subjected by reason of said assault, as well as its effects upon her future condition in life, all of which are proper elements of damage to be considered by you in making up your verdict. And if the jury further believe that said assault was unprovoked and willfully, wantonly or maliciously done, you may assess an additional sum as damages as a punishment to the defendant, and to deter others from the commission of a like offense; and in estimating such damage you may consider the financial condition of the defendant.\u201d\nThe plaintiff recovered judgment for $4,000, and the defendant appealed.\nThe trial court erred in giving to the jury instruction numbered 4. Under it they might have found that appellant committed an assault upon appellee by making the indecent and insulting proposal to her at Mrs. Grigsby\u2019s, and under instruction numbered 5 returned a verdict against him for damages. The. proposal was not an assault, and, being unaccompanied by a physical injury, did not give the appellee the right to recover damages on account thereof. It was not an element of damage. Peay v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 64 Ark. 538.\nWhat we have said as to the fourth instruction applies to the words \u201cor indecent familiarity towards her\u201d in the first instruction.\nAppellant objects to the fifth instruction because it directs the jury to allow the appellee for the \u201ceffects upon her future condition in life.\u201d There was no evidence of such damage, and the direction should not have been given.\nAppellant objects to the same instruction, the fifth, because it told the jury that it might consider the appellant\u2019s wealth in computing damages, both actual and punitive. We do not think that this is a correct interpretation of the instruction. The court told the jury in this instruction what is included in actual damages, and then told them that they might allow punitive damages, and in this connection said: \u201cIn estimating such damage you may consider the financial condition of the defendant,\u201d having reference to punitive damages. Surely, the court did not mean that the wealth of the appellant could assist in measuring actual damages. Construed in the way suggested, the instruction in that respect is correct. 2 Sutherland on Damages (3d Ed.) \u00a7 404, and case cited. But it is defective in form, and should not have be given as it is. The defect, however, should have been pointed out by a specific objection.\nReverse and remand for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Battue;, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Stuckey & Stuckey, Morris M. Cohn, and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellant.", "Yancey & Casey and Wright & Reeder, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Davis v. Richardson.\nOpinion delivered July 22, 1905.\n1. Indecent assault \u2014 misleading instruction. \u2014 Where there was evidence, in a civil action for indecent assault, that defendant made an indecent and insulting proposal to plaintiff, and subsequently assaulted her, an instruction that \u201cif a man takes improper liberties with a female, * * * he is guilty of indecent assault,\u201d is misleading, since it might be taken to refer to the proposal, which was not an assault. (Page 351.)\n2. Sams \u2014 An instruction to the jury in a civil action for indecent assault, directing a recovery for plaintiff if defendant made use of any \u201cindecent familiarity toward her,\u201d was erroneous and prejudicial if the language quoted might be understood to refer to an indecent proposal which defendant is said to have made to plaintiff. (Page 352.)\n3. Same \u2014 abstract instruction.' \u2014 It was error in a civil action for assault to instruct the jury to allow the defendant for the \u201ceffects upon her future condition in life,\u201d if there was no evidence of such damage. (Page 352.)\n4. Sams \u2014 instruction construed. \u2014 Where, in a civil action for indecent assault, the jury were told what elements would be considered in awarding actual damages, and then were told that they might, under certain circumstances, allow punitive damages also, after which the instruction added, \u201cIn estimating such damage you may consider the financial condition of the defendant,\u201d the instruction, while defective in form, was not erroneous as permitting the jury to consider defendant\u2019s wealth in ascertaining plaintiff\u2019s actual damages. (Page 352.\n5. Instruction \u2014 formas defect. \u2014 A formal defect in an instruction should be pointed out by a specific objection. (Page 352.)\nAppeal from Stone Circuit Court; Frederick D. Fulkerson, Judge;\nreversed.\nStuckey & Stuckey, Morris M. Cohn, and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellant.\nYancey & Casey and Wright & Reeder, for appellee.\nThis court will not reverse a cause where there is evidence to support the verdict. 13 Ark. 317; 51 Ark. 115, 324; 57 Ark. 577; 23 Ark. 208; 13 Ark. 385; 25 Ark. 89, 482; 27 Ark. 517; 46 Ark. 524; 4 7 Ark. 196; 50 Ark. 511. Testimony introduced without objection cannot be complained of. 1 Ark. 224; 6 Ark. 456; 7 Ark. 488; 9 Ark. 389; 10 Ark. 184; 13 Ark. 437; 15 Ark. 128; 17 Ark. 188; 18 Ark. 34; 36 Ark. 653, 221, 304; 39 Ark. 221; 52 Ark. 180. The instruction upon the question of an assault was proper. Kirby\u2019s Dig. \u00a7 1583; 43 Ind. 146; 3 Cyc. 1020. Instructions Nos. 1 and 4 correctly stated the law. 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Eaw. 975; 38 Am. Rep. 703; 66 Id. 805; 8 Ark. 183; 15 Ark. 491; 36 Ark. 242; 42 Ark. 57; 71 Ark. 351; 23 Ark. 215; 71 Ark. 574; 69 Ark. 448. Appellant should have asked to have the instructions amended. 56 Ark. 602; 60 Ark. - 613; 47 Ark. 196; 45 Ark. 539. The instructions as- to the measure of damages were correct. 19 Am. Rep. 319; 50 Id. 143; 67 Am. Dec. 560; 82 Id. 670; 17 Fed. 913; 6 Dana, 477; 80 Me. 177; 61 Md. 89; 16 S. C. 575; 4 Wis. 85; 24 Wis. 452; 50 Mo. 361." }, "file_name": "0348-01", "first_page_order": 370, "last_page_order": 374 }