Shultz v. Chambers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Jldams county. Henry Chambers against John Shultz. This was an action of slander, in which the declaration consisted of three counts.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Jldams county. Henry Chambers against John Shultz. This was an action of slander, in which the declaration consisted of three counts. After the usual commencement, they thus concluded: First count.—Heretofore, to wit, on the 20th day of December A. D. 1837, at the county aforesaid, in a certain discourse which the said defendant then and there had of and concerning the said plaintiff, in the presence and hearing of one Joseph Miller, and of divers good and worthy citizens of this commonwealth, then and there, in the presence and hearing of the said last mentioned…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
The words laid in the second count are actionable without the aid of the colloquium and innuendo, as they impute to the plaintiff the commission of the crime of larceny. “You (meaning the plaintiff) took Katy’s money out of the hole; you robbed the gal, and if you don’t give her back her money you shall answer for it at the last day.” The plaintiff is charged with an offence, viz: the felonious taking and carrying away the money of another, deposited in a particular place. The word robbed is not used in its technical sense, but must,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- State v. SquiresSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Commonwealth v. SwallowSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
- Herst v. BorbidgeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
- State v. MottSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1883
- Stitzell v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.