Haywood v. Foster
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error, directed to the Supreme Court of Ashtabula county. Tho original action was slander, for speaking words imputing to the defendant unchastity and bestiality. The general issue, denying the speaking of the words, was the defense relied on.
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error, directed to the Supreme Court of Ashtabula county. Tho original action was slander, for speaking words imputing to the defendant unchastity and bestiality. The general issue, denying the speaking of the words, was the defense relied on. A verdict was rendered for defendant, and judgment was entered at the August term, a. d. 1846. On the trial several exceptions were taken to tbo ruling of tho court, which are presented by the record, and on which errors are assigned. These are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Birchard C. J.
Tho defendant, on the examination of a witness to prove the speaking of the words laid in the declaration, was allowed to ask of the witness what he understood the plaintiff to mean by the language ho usod. The first assignment presents tho inquiry, was this erroneous? In this case the words spoken had a plain, natural, and obvious meaning. In that sense the jury must have taken them. *They could have been understood in one sense only, with or without the explanation of the witness. It is difficult to see how the plaintiff could have been injured by an answer to tho question;…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Dick v. HyerOhio Supreme Court · 1916
- American Insurance v. Ellsworth Freight Lines, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1960
- American Exchange Bank v. BrenzingerLucas County Court of Common Pleas · 1900
- Brace v. BerdanMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Brenzinger v. American Exchange BankLucas Circuit Court · 1900
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.