Polston v. See
Supreme Court of Missouri
2. Practice, civil — Trials—Instructions—Slander.— In an action of slander for charging the plaintiff with theft, an instruction to the jury to find for the defendant, if they find that the plaintiff, in person, or by agent, took away the property, is wrong, because it omits the essential ingredient of felonious intent. 3. Practice, civil — Trials—Instructions—Confusing—Re-trial.— When the instructions given on a trial must have confused and misled the jury, a new trial…
Read the full summary
2. Practice, civil — Trials—Instructions—Slander.— In an action of slander for charging the plaintiff with theft, an instruction to the jury to find for the defendant, if they find that the plaintiff, in person, or by agent, took away the property, is wrong, because it omits the essential ingredient of felonious intent. 3. Practice, civil — Trials—Instructions—Confusing—Re-trial.— When the instructions given on a trial must have confused and misled the jury, a new trial should be granted. Appeal frdm Audrain Circuit Court. I. The plaintiff was permitted to detail conversations between himself…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action for slanderous words, charged to have been spoken by the defendant- of the plaintiff, and thereby imputing to him the crime of 'larceny in stealing lumber belonging to the defendant.
The slanderous words were set out in three several counts of the petition, which concluded with a prayer for damages to the amount of $5,000.
The answer denied the speaking of the words as charged in the first and second counts, and justified as to the last count, on the ground that the words were true, and that the plaintiff had been guilty of the larceny as charged.
There were several…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Smith v. BurrusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Continental Insurance v. JachnichenIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Sundquist v. Hardware Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of MinnesotaIllinois Supreme Court · 1939
- Rothschild v. American Central InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Edwards v. George Knapp & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.