Findlay v. Bear
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In JL4B.R.OIU ON a writ of error to Somerset county, this appeared to be an action of slander brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, in which the declaration set forth, that the defendant uttered and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the following words : “ Daniel Bear pilfered a dog, and peddled the dog through the county, and then sold him to John Levingood for five dollars.”
Read the full summary
In JL4B.R.OIU ON a writ of error to Somerset county, this appeared to be an action of slander brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error, in which the declaration set forth, that the defendant uttered and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the following words : “ Daniel Bear pilfered a dog, and peddled the dog through the county, and then sold him to John Levingood for five dollars.” The jury found a verdict in favour of the plaintiff for thirty-seven dollars ; and a motion in arrest of judgment having been overruled by the Court, the defendant took out this…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J. —
This is an action of slander, and the only question is, whether the words laid in the declaration are actionable. The words were, “ that the plaintiff stole a dog.” The objection is, that a dog is not a subject of felony, and therefore it was impossible the plaintiff should steal one. It is conceded by the counsel for the plaintiff, that, by the common law, a dog is not that kind of property of which there can be a felony. It is so laid down by Hale and Haw* *572kins, who have been followed by all subsequent writers ok criminal law. But it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mullaly v. . People of the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Harrington v. MilesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- State v. LymusOhio Supreme Court · 1875