Helm v. Bassett
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Randolp Circuit Court. The counsel for the plaintiff in error, rely upon the following points and authorities to reverse the judgment of the circuit court: 1st. There was evidence of the speaking of the words as charged, and also of the intention of the defendant when he uttered them, as well as of the understanding of the hearers, and that where there is evidence from which a jury may find one way or the other, a court ought not and will not set aside their…
Read the full summary
ERROR to Randolp Circuit Court. The counsel for the plaintiff in error, rely upon the following points and authorities to reverse the judgment of the circuit court: 1st. There was evidence of the speaking of the words as charged, and also of the intention of the defendant when he uttered them, as well as of the understanding of the hearers, and that where there is evidence from which a jury may find one way or the other, a court ought not and will not set aside their finding, although such finding may be different from what the court would have found. To authorize the interference of a court,…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action of slander brought by Helm against Bassett, in which Helm recovered a verdict of four hundred and seventy dollars. A motion was afterwards made for a new trial, which was sustained, and on a second trial, Helm obtained a verdict for sixty dollars. Helm then moved the court to enter judgment on the first verdict, as the motion for the new trial had been improperly sustained. This motion was overruled, and the cause is brought up by writ of error.
The question presented by the record in the case is whether a writ of error will lie for granting a new trial? It must be confessed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hill v. WilkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1835
- Johnson v. StraderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1833
3Cited by2 opinions
- Keating v. BradfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Howland v. ReevesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887