Shock v. M'Chesney
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Slander. Words of forgery. Plea non ml. with leave to give the special matter in evidence. The plaintiff having proved the substance of the words spoken as laid in the declaration, offered to give evidence of other slanderous words at other times. This was excepted to by the defendant’s counsel. Though it is laid down in some of the books, (Bull.
Read the full summary
Slander. Words of forgery. Plea non ml. with leave to give the special matter in evidence. The plaintiff having proved the substance of the words spoken as laid in the declaration, offered to give evidence of other slanderous words at other times. This was excepted to by the defendant’s counsel. Though it is laid down in some of the books, (Bull. Nisi Prius 7. Espin. 520) that after the plaintiff has establish the speaking of the words declared for, he may give in' evidence other expressions as a proof of malice, yet in reason, these should be restricted to words not actionable in themselves,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
The proof of words spoken at other times should be confined to expressions of the same nature as those complained ofj to evince the malevolence and rancorous frame of mind of the defendant towards the plaintiff'. Distinct slanders, charging the plain*474tiff with other offences,' should not be received in evidence, because the defendant cannot be prepared to meet them, and they form the subjects of other actions in which the slanderer is punishable. Such we take to be the uniform practice, and the true meaning of all the cases. Vide Peake 166, 22. In Mead v. Daubigny, the plaintiff…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Post Pub. Co. v. HallamCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
- Auer v. MauserSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Bodwell v. SwanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1825