(Download) "State v. Clifford" by In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Clifford
- Author : In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana
- Release Date : January 06, 2005
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 79 KB
Description
There has been testimony offered regarding the character and the conduct of Louise Ramsey and her aunt, Edna Davis, and Sallie Ramsey and her aunt, Edna Davis. The Court charges you that while this testimony is not competent as bearing upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, that it is material for you to consider only as
The appeal is from an order of Hamilton, S.J., allowing to Thomas J. White, H. Frank Owens, Jr., and J. A. Jones of the Kinston Bar, attorneys fees pendente lite as counsel representing the plaintiff in the above captioned proceeding for alimony without divorce against her husband, Isaac Stadiem. The appeal is by the defendant in that proceeding.
The question chiefly debated on the defendants appeal in this Court was the correctness of the ruling below denying the defendants motion for judgment of nonsuit. While not conceding evidence of actionable negligence on the part of defendants, it was urged that from the plaintiffs evidence it necessarily followed as a matter of law that he was chargeable with contributory negligence, barring recovery.
The question for decision is whether the defendants statement to the sheriff that he had killed a man in South Carolina and was an escaped convict from that State was properly admitted in evidence against him on the present prosecution. The answer is to be evolved from the record.
Defendant, in brief filed in this Court, very frankly states that there is no serious dispute but that Strickland, who was one of its employees and who was operating its truck at the time of the accident, was guilty of negligence. And, assuming this to be true, defendant contends, and rightly so, that the real question presented is as to whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies under the facts of this case. That is, the underlying and basic question presented by defendants exception to the denial of its motions, aptly made, for judgment as in case of nonsuit, is this: Was Strickland acting within the scope of his employment by defendant at the time of and in respect to the collision resulting in damage to property, of which plaintiffs complain?
All the testimony offered by plaintiff tends to show that water and mud entered the vault by reason of the fact the top was not locked to the base at one end at the time of the original interment. She offered no testimony tending to prove that it was not waterproof as represented by defendants.
The criminal complaints underlying the first two warrants charge the defendant with trespass on the land of another after notice or warning contrary to a statute, which was enacted in 1866 and which is now codified as G.S. 14-134. The portion of the statute germane to this appeal is in these words: If any person after being forbidden to do so, shall go or enter upon the lands of another, without a license therefor, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction, shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars, or imprisoned not more than thirty days." G.S. 14-134.