Godwin v. Collins

Citations

• 67 Fla. 197
• 64 So. 752

Syllabus

<p>1. In an action at law for the recovery of damages for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff by the defendant striking him on the head with an axe, where the defendant, under his plea of not guilty, seeks to show that he struck the plaintiff in self-defense and introduced testimony to the effect that he had reason to believe from the actions of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was about to draw a pistol upon him, the defendant, no error is committed. in sustaining the defendant’s objection to the following question propounded to the plaintiff: “Did you have a pistol on the day that Mr. Collins struck you?” It was immaterial whether the plaintiff actually had a pistol in his possession at that time or not. The point to be determined from the testimony was whether or not the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff had a pistol in his possession and was about to draw the same upon the defendant.</p> <p>2. In passing upon an assignment questioning the correctness of the ruling of the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial, which is b^sed upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the Í ^ct, the guiding principle for an appellate court is not %hat it may think the jury ought to have done, ior what such court may think it would have done, had it jbeen sitting as a jury in the case, but whether, as reasonable ¡men, the jury could have found such a verdict. If this question can be answered in the affirmative, the action of the trial court upon such motion should not be disturbed.</p>