Lane v. Bryant
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 24 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In an action for slander, words spoken of plaintiff by defendant after the action was commenced, are not admissible in evidence.
Read the full summary
Case 24 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT. 1. In an action for slander, words spoken of plaintiff by defendant after the action was commenced, are not admissible in evidence. Z. A charge that one has sworn falsely in one case, is not of similar import to the charge that he has sworn falsely in another case. 3. The second paragraph of the answer admitting the speaking of the words and justifying, which was stricken out under the requirement to elect, should not have been read to the jury as an admission by defendants of the speaking of the words. 4. The reason of the common…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Pryor
Wm. Lane and Mattie Lane, the appellants in this court, are husband and wife.
The wife (Mattie) charged the appellee, Bryant, with haying committed the crime of perjury when testifying *140in a certain action between one Vaught and her husband. This action of slander was instituted by Bryant, the appellee, against Mattie and her husband, and a verdict returned, upon which a judgment was rendered against both husband and wife, and a capias directed to issue against the husband. They both appeal, the wife insisting the judgment should be reversed against both, because of the admission of incompetent…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harper v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Rooney v. TierneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1884
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hageman v. VanderdoesArizona Supreme Court · 1914
- Curtis v. AshworthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Schuler v. HenrySupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Turner v. HeavrinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918
- King v. City of OwensboroCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.