Brown v. Wintsch
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — How. Shannon C. Douglass, Judge. (1) Plaintiff over defendant’s objections was permitted to prove by Mrs. Duke how plaintiff appeared when she told her that Mrs. Wintsch had been talking about her and trying to run her character down. (2) Mrs. Griffin, over defendant’s objections, was allowed to testify that she understood Mrs. Wintsch to mean that they were living together in adultery and fornication.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — How. Shannon C. Douglass, Judge. (1) Plaintiff over defendant’s objections was permitted to prove by Mrs. Duke how plaintiff appeared when she told her that Mrs. Wintsch had been talking about her and trying to run her character down. (2) Mrs. Griffin, over defendant’s objections, was allowed to testify that she understood Mrs. Wintsch to mean that they were living together in adultery and fornication. There was nothing ambiguous or uncertain about the words spoken and such testimony should have been excluded. Callahan v. Ingram, 122 Mo. 355'; Lewis v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, J.
— This was an action for slander. In the petition, consisting of a single count, it is alleged (1), that plaintiff is an unmarried woman, and that on June 1, 1899, Mrs. Wintseh spoke of and concerning plaintiff to Martha Rose “that Mrs Brown had lived with her husband as man and wife before they were *268married, and that she was not a decent woman to associate with,” with innuendo that she had been guilty of fornication. (2) That on August 1, 1899, Mrs. Wintsch spoke of and concerning the plaintiff to Mary Duke “that Mrs. Brown was not a decent woman, as she had lived with her husband, Mr.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Callahan v. IngramSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Christal v. CraigSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- State v. BuchlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Pennington v. MeeksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Stieber v. WenselSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Haynes v. RobertsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Crandall v. GreevesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Vogel v. BushnellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1920
- Cook v. Globe Printing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- State v. WestbrookMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914