Miller v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
IN error, from the court of common pleas of Rensselaer county. The defendant in error brought an action slander against the plaintiff in error, in the court be-^ow’ f°r speaking the following words: u Tina Miller has stolen my watch, and Pollif Miller (meaning the . \ K 6 plaintiff below) has concealed it for her.
Read the full summary
IN error, from the court of common pleas of Rensselaer county. The defendant in error brought an action slander against the plaintiff in error, in the court be-^ow’ f°r speaking the following words: u Tina Miller has stolen my watch, and Pollif Miller (meaning the . \ K 6 plaintiff below) has concealed it for her. In the second - . . , . - count, the words charged were “ my watch was stolen out of the widow Miller’s (plaintiff’s) bar, and Tina Miller took it, and her mother (plaintiff) concealed it.’-’ From the record it appeared, that there was a trial by r 1 _ J who found a verdict for the…
1Per curiam
Two questions arise in this cause.
1. Do the words, as proved, support the charge in . the declaration, and are they actionable?
2. What is the effect of the miscalculation in the total amount of damages.
It is now sufficient to prove the substance of the Words, and the sense, as well as manner of speaking them, must be the same. (Bull. N. P. 5. Esp. Dig. 521.)
If words are charged to be spoken in the third person, as he, &c. and the proof be of words in the second person, as you, &c. the proof will not support the declaration, there being a difference between words spoken in a passion, to a…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Jones, Varnum & Co. v. Townsend's AdministratrixSupreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Prewitt v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Bank of Lansingburgh v. CraryNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Thompson v. Lewiston Daily Sun Publishing Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1898
- Fox v. VanderbeckNew York Supreme Court · 1826
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.