Duvall v. Griffith
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Montgomery County Court. This was an action on the case for slander, brought on the 9th of December 1822. The plaintiff, (now appellee,) among other slanders declared for, charged the defendant with speaking of him the following words: “He, (meaning the plaintiff,) was a sheep-stealer, and that he stole old Plummer’s sheep, and that he (the defendant,) could prove that he (the plaintiff,) did steal Joshua Plummer’s and Philemon D. Bidgely’s sheep, and William…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery County Court. This was an action on the case for slander, brought on the 9th of December 1822. The plaintiff, (now appellee,) among other slanders declared for, charged the defendant with speaking of him the following words: “He, (meaning the plaintiff,) was a sheep-stealer, and that he stole old Plummer’s sheep, and that he (the defendant,) could prove that he (the plaintiff,) did steal Joshua Plummer’s and Philemon D. Bidgely’s sheep, and William JStcheson’s sheep,” &c. Not guilty pleaded, and issue joined,. The plaintiff at the trial proved the words as laid in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Buchanan, Ch. J.
The court are of opinion, that the testimony objected to by the defendant in the court below, was admissible for the purpose of showing the malice of the defendant in speaking the words laid in the declaration; and if admissible for any purpose, the court below were right in permitting the evidence to go to the jury.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Garrett v. DickersonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863
- Dorsey v. WhippsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1849