Holley v. Burgess
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Talladega. Trespass on the case, for standerous words by the defendant against the plaintiff in error. The declaration in the usual form, charges the defendant with saying that the plaintiff “was whipped for stealing hogs.” The defendant pleaded not guilty. From a bill of exceptions, it appears, that the plaintiff and defendant lived in the same neighborhood.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Talladega. Trespass on the case, for standerous words by the defendant against the plaintiff in error. The declaration in the usual form, charges the defendant with saying that the plaintiff “was whipped for stealing hogs.” The defendant pleaded not guilty. From a bill of exceptions, it appears, that the plaintiff and defendant lived in the same neighborhood. The defendant offered to prove by several witnesses, that befpre and about the time of uttering the slander charged in the declaration, they had heard a report, and rumor, in different parts of the county,…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The words laid in the declaration, are clearly a charge of stealing hogs, and this accusation is certainly not softened, or modified, by the addition, that the party had been whipped for it. This being a larceny, the words are in themselves actionable. The interpretation put upon these words by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that they do not import a charge of hog stealing, but were merely intended as the statement of a fact, that the defendant in error had been whipped upon a suspicion, or accusation, of hog stealing, cannot be sustained. If such had been the intention, different…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Drummond v. DrummondSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Bell v. FernaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1888