Hill v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, the Appanoose District Court. ¡^Trespass against defendant and his son, for assault and battery. Justification by father, that the assault was committed in defence of his son and his own property. Before the trial of the cause, the son was released by the plaintiff,, and discharged by the court. On the trial, the defendant' sought to introduce the son as a witness, but being objected to, he was excluded by the court, and this is now assigned for error.
1Opinion of the Court
’Wright, C. J,
This- ruling was erroneous. The son was no longer a party to the record, nor in any manner responsible for any judgment plaintiff might recover against the father, or for costs. The plaintiff, by dismissing his suit'as-to the son, became liable for the costs, consequent upon his-having been made a party, and his competency as a witness-was as undoubted, as if he had never been connected with the record. Had there been a joint trial, there is no question but that the son might, on motion, have been released,, for the want of evidence to charge him as a trespasser; and that upon…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Deusen v. Van SlyckNew York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by1 opinion
- Sloan v. PierceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906