Herr v. Bamberg
New York Supreme Court
The action is for slander. The allegation is, that the defendant charged the plaintiff with having swindled him, in a quantity of gold and jewelry, and with being a “ swindler.” It is alleged that these words were spoken of the plaintiff as a merchant, and were intended to charge him with the crime of obtaining goods and money under false pretences.
Read the full summary
The action is for slander. The allegation is, that the defendant charged the plaintiff with having swindled him, in a quantity of gold and jewelry, and with being a “ swindler.” It is alleged that these words were spoken of the plaintiff as a merchant, and were intended to charge him with the crime of obtaining goods and money under false pretences. The defendant denies the allegations of the complaint; and then, secondly, by way of justification, alleges that on the first day of October, 1853, the defendant and his partner delivered to the plaintiff and his partner, and left with them, a…
1Opinion of the Court
Harris, Justice.
A demurrer to an answer which does not contain a counter claim is no longer allowable. But the legislature, at the same time this amendment was made, also amended the 152d section of the Code, so as to authorize the court, upon motion, to strike out irrelevant defences. If, therefore, the defences to which this motion relates, are irrelevant, the plaintiff has sought the proper remedy.
The charge as stated in the complaint is, that the plaintiff had swindled the defendant out of the property, and that he was a swindler. In other words, that the plaintiff had, by deliberate…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Walden v. Bodley's HeirsSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Bush v. ProsserNew York Supreme Court · 1852
3Cited by1 opinion
- Littlejohn v. GreeleyNew York Supreme Court · 1861