Olmsted v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Westchester common pleas. Mary Miller brought an action of slander against Joseph Olmsted. The declaration contained four counts. In the three first, the words charged to have been spoken were the following: “ She (meaning the plaintiff) had connection (meaning carnal and sexual intercourse and connection) with Phineas Barrett (meaning a certain man by that name).” “She (meaning, &c.) had connection (meaning, &c.) with Wm.
Read the full summary
Error from the Westchester common pleas. Mary Miller brought an action of slander against Joseph Olmsted. The declaration contained four counts. In the three first, the words charged to have been spoken were the following: “ She (meaning the plaintiff) had connection (meaning carnal and sexual intercourse and connection) with Phineas Barrett (meaning a certain man by that name).” “She (meaning, &c.) had connection (meaning, &c.) with Wm. Marshall (meaning, &c.)” “Robert Brown (meaning a certain colored man of that name) had connection (meaning carnal and sexual intercourse and connection)…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, C. J;
It is said in Butter’s N. P. 5, that “ it was formerly holder), that the plaintiff must prove the words precisely as laid ; but that strictness is now laid aside, and it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the substance of them. However, if the words be laid in the third person, proof of words spoken in the second person, will not support the declaration.” This rule was adopted by this court, in Miller v. Miller, (8 Johns. R. 74.) In that case, the words laid, were, “ My watch was stolen out of the widow Miller’s (plaintiff’s) bar, and Tina Miller took it, and…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Terwilliger v. . WandsNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Birch v. BentonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- McQueen v. FulghamTexas Supreme Court · 1864
- Wheeler v. RobbIndiana Supreme Court · 1824
- McClintock v. CrickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.