Bridgman v. Hopkins
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of slander for charging the plaintiff, an unmarried man, with having had illicit intercourse with a married woman, and thereby committed the crime of adultery.
Read the full summary
This was an action of slander for charging the plaintiff, an unmarried man, with having had illicit intercourse with a married woman, and thereby committed the crime of adultery. On the trial by jury at the December term, 1860, in Caledonia county, Poland, Ch. J., presiding, exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to the admission of evidence offered in mitigation of damages, that before the speaking of the words the plaintiff’s general character and reputation in the community for chastity was bad, and that he was generally reputed in the community to be an unchaste and licentious man.
1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, J.
It is claimed upon the above exceptions that the evidence was improperly admitted, for the reason, that while the alleged slander consisted in charging the plaintiff with having committed the crime of adultery, the evidence of character was not restricted to general character, in reference to the technical kind and legal quality of the act charged, which rendered the words slanderous and actionable. In other words, it is claimed that no evidence as to character was admissible, except such as tended to show that the plaintiff’s general character was bad in reference to the crime of adultery.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bowen v. HallSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
3Cited by5 opinions
- Earley v. WinnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Bathrick v. Detroit Post & Tribune Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Republican Pub. Co. v. MosmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
- B— v. I—Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1867
- Georgia v. BondMichigan Supreme Court · 1897