Ridley v. Perry
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
, This was an action of slander in which the plaintiff alleged, that the defendant charged him with stealing sheep. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and filed a brief statement, wherein he set forth, that he expected to prove, that prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff had stolon boards and meal. At the trial before Wjsstos C. J. the defendant offered to prove, that tho plaintiff had stolen boards and meal.
Read the full summary
, This was an action of slander in which the plaintiff alleged, that the defendant charged him with stealing sheep. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and filed a brief statement, wherein he set forth, that he expected to prove, that prior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff had stolon boards and meal. At the trial before Wjsstos C. J. the defendant offered to prove, that tho plaintiff had stolen boards and meal. The Chief Justice ruled, that the evidence was inadmissible and rejected it. The verdict for the plaintiff was to be set aside, if the testimony offered ought to…
1Opinion of the Court
The case was continued for argument, and the opinion of the Court was subsequently drawn up by
Weston C. J.
The facts set forth in the brief statement, and which were offered to be proved at the trial, constituted no defence to the action. It is not pretended, that they did; but it is insisted, that the testimony should have been received in mitigation of dam-» ages. We consider the law upon this point well laid down in Alderman v. French, and in Bodwell v. Swan et ux., cited in the argument, that evidence of general character only, and not of par-» ticular facts, can be received in evidence.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Thibault v. SessionsMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Johnson v. WhippleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Pallet v. SargentSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1858
- Evening Post Pub. Co. v. VoightCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1896