Bigner v. Hodges
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Liucolu couuty. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Hodges, appellee, was plaintiff, and Bigner, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The suit was for slander.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Liucolu couuty. Hon. Robert Powell, Judge. Hodges, appellee, was plaintiff, and Bigner, appellant, was defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed to the supreme court. The suit was for slander. On the trial the evidence was to the effect that both Bigner and Hodges were butchers in the village of Norfield, and that Bigner had been offered a steer for beef by one Williams, and that Hodges, some days after that bought the steer from Williams and butchered it, and sold it in the market in Norfield,. and that Bigner went to the…
1Opinion of the CourtCalhoon, J.
It is questionable whether any amendment of the declaration was needed, but, if it was, the¡ allowance of it was proper. We think there was no material variance between the allegata and probata. The words are practically synonymous.
' The doctrine of privileged communications cannot afford shelter. The mayor and the marshal were not the only persons to whom the words were spoken, and, even as to them, the defendant himself testified that he met them casually and made his statement to them. It is difficult to believe that it was for the public good he designed the communication. The jury did…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Downtown Grill, Inc. v. ConnellMississippi Supreme Court · 1998
- Otten v. SchuttWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Elms v. CraneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- Downtown Grill Inc v. Michael ConnellMississippi Supreme Court · 1996