Widrig v. Oyer
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, from the court of Common pleas of HerTcirnei' > " 1 county. The plaintiff brought an action of slander in the court J i . o kel°w* The words- charged, as spoken by the wife of Oyer, the-defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, were, “ She (mean-’ng the plaintiff) did, with the assistance of her mother, procure, ai)d take medicine, or poison, in order, and with intent, to kill, ai)d poison to death, a bastard child she (the plaintiff) was pregnant with, or like…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, from the court of Common pleas of HerTcirnei' > " 1 county. The plaintiff brought an action of slander in the court J i . o kel°w* The words- charged, as spoken by the wife of Oyer, the-defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, were, “ She (mean-’ng the plaintiff) did, with the assistance of her mother, procure, ai)d take medicine, or poison, in order, and with intent, to kill, ai)d poison to death, a bastard child she (the plaintiff) was pregnant with, or like to.have; and she (the plaintiff) did kill the bastard child which she was like to.have, by means of taking, the said…
1Per curiam
We have no doubt the offence charged is indictable, and its criminality, or moral turpitude, cannot be questioned. The words were clearly actionable, witbin the rule laid down by üs in Brooker v. Coffin, which we consider as affording the best criterion for determining whether words spoken are actionable or not. The judgment of the court below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed*
2Cited by9 opinions
- Pollard v. LyonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- State v. MasonOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Douglas v. DouglasIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- Kemp v. Board of Medical SupervisorsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1917
- Wright v. PaigeNew York Supreme Court · 1862
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.