De Moss v. Haycock
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Keokuik District Court. Slander. The plaintiff’s cause of action was words used by the defendant, charging him with “pilfering,” “stealing ” and “ taking without leave,” hay, lumber and other articles, the property belonging to the defendant. Trial and verdict for plaintiff. The defendant moved the Court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, assigning as ground therefor the giving and refusing to give instructions to the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Keokuik District Court. Slander. The plaintiff’s cause of action was words used by the defendant, charging him with “pilfering,” “stealing ” and “ taking without leave,” hay, lumber and other articles, the property belonging to the defendant. Trial and verdict for plaintiff. The defendant moved the Court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, assigning as ground therefor the giving and refusing to give instructions to the jury. This motion was overruled; judgment entered on the verdict, and the plaintiff appeals. cited Hays and wife v. Hays, 1 Humph., 402; Marshal v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, Ch. J.
Slander. The Court below, at the request of the plaintiff, gave to the jury the following instruction, viz.: “ It is not for the jury to construe the meaning of the words spoken by Haycock, but the jury must determine the meaning of the words by hearing how the witnesses understood them when they heard them spoken by defendant, Haycock.” The giving of this instruction is complained of as error.
Taking this instruction as an abstract proposition of law, it perhaps might tend to mislead the jury. The true rule, is, as recognized by this Court in the case of Truman et ux. v. Taylor…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dorland v. PattersonNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Truman v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barton v. HolmesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Hunt v. Chicago & N. W. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Sheibley v. AshtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906