Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Mo. 71

Corwin v. Walton

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1853

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1853-03-15

•Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Tnis was a civil action brought by William E. Corwin against Charles D. Walton, to recover damages for an assault and battery. At tbe trial, tbe plaintiff gave evidence tending to show an aggravated assault upon him by tbe defendant, from which be suffered serious injury.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1920

12 state decisions

3018531860187018801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scott, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶21. The plea of guilty having been entered on the record in the case of the State against the present defendant, on an indictment for the same offence, that record was evidence in the present action. 2 Taylor on Evidence, 1115.

¶3*732. When an individual carried on a criminal prosecution and a civil action for the same offence, courts have held him to his election, and would not compel a defendant to discover the matter of his defence and evidence, unless the prosecutor would give up the right which he might otherwise have to make use of this very discovery against the defendant, in his civil action, which would be giving him a most unfair and unreasonable advantage. Rex v. Fielding, 2 Burr. 719. But this interference was only with the criminal prosecution ; the courts did not assume any authority to stay or arrest in any way the private actions of individuals. Jones v. Clay, 1 Bos. & Pul. 191. In assessing the punishment, the courts would regard the fact, that the person injured had recovered exemplary damages for the wrong done, and so the jury, who, by statute, have succeeded to the power of courts in assessing the punishment after a conviction, would be influenced in determining the degree of punishment, by the fact that the party wronged had recovered vindictive damages for the same injury.

¶4It would appear, then, that the damages of the party aggrieved in his action for the wrong done him, were not liable to be affected by any thing done in the public prosecution. ( Th%/lMrpdMwJt' punishment inflicted may be affected by the verdict in the civil {fjuu ¿y- ~ action, but the damages to be recovered in the private suit are t-ttth wholly uninfluenced by any thing that may have transpired in , the prosecution carried on by the state.\ This being so, it was finis** not a matter of any consequence from which side the proof of • ^ | the conviction and fine proceeded. The plaintiff was entitled ’ to exemplary damages, notwithstanding he produced such evi- (sf/Wt Affirmed, the other judges content. dence himself.

/18/mo/71 · .json · Public domain