Zimmerman v. Helser

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit was brought by the appellee to recover the value of a certain quantity of rye claimed by him and sold by the appellant under an execution against Jacob Myers. The declaration contains two counts, one for trover, the other for trespass “ de bonis asportatis.” After proof tending to show title in the rye, the appellee offered in evidence a certified copy of a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county, Pennsylvania, entitled, John Zimmerman vs. Jacob Myers, and upon which was the following entry: “ Rec’d satisfaction in full of debt, interest and costs. “ John Zimmerman.” This record was offered for the purpose and with the promise on the part of the appellee to follow it up by other proofs tending to show that this judgment, thus entered satisfied in 1861, included the judgment and debt under which the rye was sold by the appellant in 1862. With that view it was clearly admissible under the second count.

In an action of trespass a party may give in evidence for the purpose of increasing the damages, the circumstances which accompanied and gave character to the wrong. In such an action the motives from which the unlawful act springs are always to be ²⁷⁸ considered by the jury. If property be taken under a bona fide claim of title, the value of the property, as a general rule, is the true measure of the damage, but if, on the contrary, the claim is but a mere pretence for the purpose of perpetrating a wrong, the jury may give exemplary damages. Schindell vs. Schindell, 12 Md., 122 ; Snively & Keys vs. Fahnestock, 18 Md., 395 ; Ridgely vs. Bond, 17 Md., 23 .

The appellee then offered to prove by "William Adams, a member of the bar of Pennsylvania, the Statute law of that State, in regard to the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. This evidence was inadmissible, for although the common or unwritten law of another State may be proved as a fact by witnesses acquainted with the law, yet the Statute law can only be proved by an authenticated copy of the law, or from a printed volume purporting to contain the laws of such State. Code of Public General Laws, Art. 37, sec. 47; Gardner vs. Lewis, 7.Gill, 377; 1 Greenleaf on Evi., 480-487, 488. This error, however, furnishes no sufficient ground for the reversal of the judgment.

In the absence of evidence impeaching the jurisdiction of the Court where the judgment