Flowers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. 93 S.C. 80

8353

FLOWERS v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R.

Magistrate Court. — On appear from Circuit order affirming magistrate judgment, findings of fact on Circuit are not reviewable here.

Before Wilson, J., Richland,

October, 1911.

Affirmed.

Two actions: (1) W. Q. Flowers and Loula M. Flowers against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company; (3) W. Q. Flowers against same in court of magistrate Benchel. From Circuit order affirming magistrate judgment, defendant in both cases appealed, on following exceptions:

I. “Because his Honor erred in upholding- the magistrate in his refusal to hold that defendant had the legal right to' close its waiting room at the time and under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence.

II. “Because his Honor erred in sustaining the magistrate in giving judgment in plaintiffs’ favor (in the action brought by husband and wife), for more than nominal damages; for the reason that, if plaintiffs were entitled to *81damages at all, they failed utterly to prove any substantial damages, and there was no evidence whatever of any wilful or wanton invasion of plaintiffs’ rights by defendant.

III. “Because his Honor erred in sustaining the magistrate in awarding substantial damages to the plaintiffs (in the action brought by husband and wife),, for the reasons (a) that no actual damages were proved; (b) that there was no evidence upon which to base punitive damages; and (c) that the plaintiffs are not entitled, to recover for the mental worry alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff, Mrs. Lula M. Flowers.

IV. “Because his Honor erred in affirming the judgment rendered by the magistrate in favor of the husband (in his separate action), for the reasons (a) that the plaintiff failed utterly to prove any actual damages; (b) that there was no evidence whatever of any wilful or wanton invasion of plaintiffs’ rights by the defendant.

V. “Because his Honor erred in affirming the judgments rendered by the magistrate, as said judgments were, in all respects, contrary to the law and the evidence.”

Messrs. Barron, Moore, Barron & McKay and /. Nelson Frierson, for appellant.

Messrs P. T. Yoilmans and McLaughlin & Smith, contra.

October 30, 1912.