Andrews v. Vanduzer
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR., from the court of common pleas of Sullivan county. Vanduzer brought an action of slander against Andrews in the court below. The declaration stated that the defendant had maliciously, &c. said of the plaintiff, that he, the plaintiff, “ had had connexion with a marc ” Src. meaning thereby that he had been guilty of the crime against nature with a beast.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR., from the court of common pleas of Sullivan county. Vanduzer brought an action of slander against Andrews in the court below. The declaration stated that the defendant had maliciously, &c. said of the plaintiff, that he, the plaintiff, “ had had connexion with a marc ” Src. meaning thereby that he had been guilty of the crime against nature with a beast. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice that he would give in evidence that the plaintiff, before, Sec. committed the detestable crime against nature on a certain beast called a cow; and also that he, afterwards, Sec.…
1Per curiam
The decision of the court below was correct. The cases in Cro. Jac. 677. 1 Ld. Raym. 727. Bull. N. P. 9. show that the defendant who would justify a charge of felony, must justify as to the specific charge laid, and cannot set up a charge of the same thing, but distinct as to the subject matter. It is a settled rule that a defendant cannot give in evidence, under the general issue in an action of slander, matter which might be pleaded in bar, nor can he give in evidence any other crime than the one charged. The judgment below must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by13 opinions
- Torrey v. FieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1838
- Woodbeck v. KellerNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Swift v. DickermanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. SchenckCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900
- Wallace v. Homestead Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.