Anderson v. Shockley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Maries Circuit Court. — Hon. Wm. H. Martin, Judge. The new matter set up in the answer was in mitigation of the damages and tended to lessen the same, and the court erred in striking it out. R. S. 1909, sec. 1838; Trimble v. Foster, 87 Mo. 49; Minter v. Bradstreet, 174 Mo. 444; Yager v. Bruce, 116 App. 473; 4 Townsend on Slander and Libel, see. 361, p. 603; Nelson v. Wallace, 48 App. 193.
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action for slander, in which plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court.
The charge stated in the petition was that plaintiff “is a thief; that he stole a set of harrow teeth from me *336and I can prove it by John Ormsby.” Tbe prayer was for actual damages in the sum of ten thousand dollars. The answer was a general denial. The answer also contained as matter of mitigation substantially the following: That defendant was the owner of a farm and a wooden framed harrow with iron teeth, which harrow was in one of the fields of the farm. That one day when defendant was walking through…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Buckley v. KnappSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Callahan v. IngramSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Bush v. . ProsserNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Mattice v. . WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- Jones, Varnum & Co. v. Townsend's AdministratrixSupreme Court of Florida · 1885
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Anderson v. ShockleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1916