Legal Opinion
Foot v. Croswell
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 15, 1804PublishedCited by 1 opinion
This was a similar application. The affidavit stated the action to be for libellous words spoken of the plaintiff, exhibiting him in an odious point of view, as guilty of swindling; that a right determination was important to his character in society, and issue joined.
1Per curiam
The plaintiff can take nothing by his motion ; his affidavit is defective, in not stating that the words were spoken of him in his official character of district attorney, and in not swearing to their falsehood.
Struck jury denied.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896