Barker v. Hope
JAMES L. BARKER v. THOMAS HOPE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- E. W. McKinstry (author), Richard W. Rhodes, Joseph B. Crockett
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — McKinstry
McKINSTRY, J.
— We think the first instruction given by the court below is not obnoxious to the criticism to which *878it is subjected in appellant’s brief. The district court properly asserted judicial knowledge of the fact that a “fence pole” is a “heavy club”; and when the court said, “the defendant admits that he struck the plaintiff substantially as charged, ’ ’ it was a statement of an admission that he struck with a heavy club, and not of the alleged malice accompanying the blow.
Nor do we think the other points made by the appellant are well taken.
Judgment affirmed.
We concur: Crockett, J.; Rhodes, J.