State v. Atkins
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment charging the respondent with having on the 10th day of Aiigust, 1865, published of and concerning one Nathaniel Eaton, a libel, as stated and set forth in said indictment. To this indictment the respondent demurred generally. Demurrer overruled, and judgment that the indictment is sufficient, and exceptions by respondent. Heard at the March term, 186$, Pecic, J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Indictment charging the respondent with having on the 10th day of Aiigust, 1865, published of and concerning one Nathaniel Eaton, a libel, as stated and set forth in said indictment. To this indictment the respondent demurred generally. Demurrer overruled, and judgment that the indictment is sufficient, and exceptions by respondent. Heard at the March term, 186$, Pecic, J., presiding. The indictment sot forth : “ That Hiram Atkins, of Montpelier, in the county of Washington, being a person of an envious, evil and wicked mind, and of a most malicious disposition, and wickedly, maliciously and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Prout, J.
This indictment is met by a demurrer. The substance of the article, so far as material to the question urged, seems to be this : that Mr. Eaton attended a political convention while his wife lay dead at home; and it contains reflections and comments, based upon this supposed fact, which if false is libelous, as its tendency and effect is to bring him into reproach and disgrace. But the question is, whether the necessary extrinsic facts are set forth in the indictment. As to that it has been not unfrequently decided that an innuendo does not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dickey v. AndrosSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Fitzsimmons v. CutlerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1825
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. GrinsteadCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1900
- State v. ElliottCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1900