Lindsey v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of slander. The declaration contained several counts. The first count, which was 7 the only one objected to, stated, that the plaintiff is a . L justice of the peace, &c« and that the defendant, to in- , . <* i . . . jure him and expose him, as ajustice, to prosecution for corruption, &c. in a certain discourse which the defendant had with divers persons concerning the plaintiff, as a justice, said of the plaintiff in his office of a justice, “ Lindsey…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of slander. The declaration contained several counts. The first count, which was 7 the only one objected to, stated, that the plaintiff is a . L justice of the peace, &c« and that the defendant, to in- , . <* i . . . jure him and expose him, as ajustice, to prosecution for corruption, &c. in a certain discourse which the defendant had with divers persons concerning the plaintiff, as a justice, said of the plaintiff in his office of a justice, “ Lindsey (meaning the plaintiff) had been feed by Abner Wood, (meaning Abner Wood who then lately had a cause pending and determined…
1Per curiam
The slanderous intent and application . of the words charged, must be considered as established by the verdict. Here was a colloquium laid, which was sufficient to give application to the slander. It is averred that the defendant was discoursing concerning the plaintiff, as a justice, and that the words were spoken of him in relation to his office as a justice, and it was a question of evidence, whether the words so spoken of the plaintiff had an innocent or a slanderous and malí*361cious meaning. The innuendo cannot supply the place of a colic qu~urn, but here there was the competent colicquluni…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mason v. MasonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1827
- Stitzell v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868