Haynes v. Leland
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action for words spoken slanderously of plaintiff’s wife, and was tried at the last term of the Court, before Shepley, J., upon the general issue. From tho testimony of Geo.
Read the full summary
This was an action for words spoken slanderously of plaintiff’s wife, and was tried at the last term of the Court, before Shepley, J., upon the general issue. From tho testimony of Geo. Herbert, it appeared, that he was retained by plaintiffs to bring a suit against one William Haynes, for slander of plaintiff’s wife, and it was agreed by plaintiff with him, that the defendant should come to the witness’ office and state to him what William Haynes had said of plaintiff’s wife. Defendant stated to witness the words as set forth in plaintiffs’ writ, and said they were spoken by William Haynes.…
1Opinion of the Court
*236The opinion of the Court, (Whitman, C. J. dissenting,) was delivered by
Shepley, J.
One question presented by the instructions is, whether the repetition of slanderous words spoken by another person may be justified, if the name of such other person, as the author of them, be stated at the time.
In the latter part of the fourth resolution, in the Earl of Northampton’s case, 12 Rep. 132, the law is stated, that “ for slander of a common person, if J. S. publish, that he hath heard J. N. say, that J. G. was a traitor or thief, in an action of the case, if the truth be such, he may justify. But if…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Inman v. FosterNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Dole v. LyonNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Mapes v. WeeksNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Trabue v. MaysCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1835
- Jones v. ChapmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1839
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shinglemeyer v. Wright.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Haskell v. PerkinsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1911