Coleman v. Playsted
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order made at a special term, denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged slander of the plaintiff’s wife, uttered by the wife of the defendant.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from an order made at a special term, denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged slander of the plaintiff’s wife, uttered by the wife of the defendant. The slanderous words charged in the complaint were as follows: “I will not have the stinking bitch around my house any more, for I have to keep a lock and key when she is there, to lock up every thing I have, for she has stolen tea, sugar and calico, and carried it away from there, home.” Jane Eves testified the defendant said, “she had to lock up every thing in a trunk, to keep people…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
E. DaewIn Smith, J.
The words for the speaking of which this action was brought, as stated in the complaint, are as follows: “She (referring to the plaintiff’s wife) has stolen tea, sugar and calico, and carried it away from there, home.” These words, as understood in their ordinary sense, impute a larceny, and are actionable per se. The words proven on the trial, by one witness, were, “she took tea and calico from her, and she found them in her things;” and by another witness, they were, “she had taken tea and calico, and I think she said sugar.” hieither of these sets of words…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rayner v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by2 opinions
- Denn v. PetersOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Bell v. FernaldMichigan Supreme Court · 1888