Field v. Colson
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 60 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM LESLIE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. 1. The case submitted to the jury by the instructions is not the case made by the pleadings. The petition docs not allege plaintiff’s defeat for the Legislature as a cause of action, but the allegation is that the slanders complained were uttered “ for the purpose of destroying his character.” '2. The answer contains no such denial of the utterance of the slanderous words as the Code requires.
Read the full summary
Case 60 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL PROM LESLIE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS. 1. The case submitted to the jury by the instructions is not the case made by the pleadings. The petition docs not allege plaintiff’s defeat for the Legislature as a cause of action, but the allegation is that the slanders complained were uttered “ for the purpose of destroying his character.” '2. The answer contains no such denial of the utterance of the slanderous words as the Code requires. (Civil Code, sec. 95.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion op the court,
• The appellant was making a race for the Legislature against one Howard, and during the canvass abandoned the contest. After this he became a candidate again for the same office and his opponent was one Colson. The brother of Colson (G-illis Colson), the appellee in the present ease, being an active partisan of his brother, spoke and published, as the petition claimed, slanderous and defamatory words of the appellant, viz.: that he, the plaintiff (meaning Eield), in the former contest with Howard, took a bribe of three hundred dollars from Howard…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Fisher v. LarsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Shields v. BoolesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Williams v. RiddleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Gough v. Tribune-Journal CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Lynch v. Republic Publishing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.