Brooks v. Haslam
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
The defendant’s denial of the allegation that he “wilfully, unlawfully, wrongfully, and maliciously” shot the plaintiff’s husband, standing by itself, raised no issue, because the shooting, if not justifiable or excusable, was “wilful,” etc. And of this the pleader appears to have been aware, for the denial is followed by an averment “that said shooting was done purely in self-defense.” This amounts simply to a plea in confession and avoidance; and the principles of pleading before the Code required that matter in confession and avoidance should be specially pleaded, and not given in evidence…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Suell v. DerricottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Tucker v. State Ex Rel. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
- Marks v. ReissingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Hunt-Berlin Coal Co. v. PatonTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- Darby v. MooreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.