Duncan v. Brown
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 26. APPEAR FROM MEADE CIRCUIT. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. Argued — 1. That the appellants had fully sustained their plea avering the truth of the publication charged to be libelous, by showing that the plaintiff, by reason of his general bad character and conduct, had given them good reason to believe he would state a falsehood to injure one to whom he was inimical. 2'. That the Circuit Court had erred in its instructions to the jury by…
Read the full summary
Case 26. APPEAR FROM MEADE CIRCUIT. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. Argued — 1. That the appellants had fully sustained their plea avering the truth of the publication charged to be libelous, by showing that the plaintiff, by reason of his general bad character and conduct, had given them good reason to believe he would state a falsehood to injure one to whom he was inimical. 2'. That the Circuit Court had erred in its instructions to the jury by instructing them “that unless the plaintiff was so corrupt and depraved that he would sign anything Z. M. Taylor would request…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Marshall
This is an action by petition, for a libel, brought by Robert R. Brown, plaintiff, against Peter Duncan and six others, defendants. The alleged libel, as stated in the first count, is as follows: “Mr. Taylor *193affects to prove by the solitary statement of an unfortunate young man by the name of Robert Brown, (meaning the plaintiff,) that I, (meaning the defendant Duncan,) admitted amenability on the 9th day of November. This is very little short of subornation of forgery, [perjury,] on the part of Mr. Taylor, for he well knew that I told him no such thing. He coul'd' not have forgot our…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Browning v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903