House v. House
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Frederick county court. This was an action of slander. The declaration contained three counts, to which the general issue was pleaded. The only question in the case was, whether the defendant’s having charged the plaintiff with burning Ms, the defendant’s,' barn, was, per se, actionable. These were the words laid in the declaration, and laid without a colloquium.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Frederick county court. This was an action of slander. The declaration contained three counts, to which the general issue was pleaded. The only question in the case was, whether the defendant’s having charged the plaintiff with burning Ms, the defendant’s,' barn, was, per se, actionable. These were the words laid in the declaration, and laid without a colloquium. The verdict and judgment were against the defendant, and he appealed to this court/ relied on the'act of 1809, ch. 138, s. S: The United Stales vs. Sheldon, 2 Wheaton, 119. 1 Chitty’s Plead, 381, 382. Barnham’s Case, 4…
1Opinion of the CourtDos sky, J.
The; counsel for the appellant has argued with much ingenuity, that the words laid in the declaration do not perse import an offence, for which the plaintiff could; be prosecuted and punished, and therefore are not actionable, as no colloqui1im is stated in either count. IBs argument is this, that the act concerning crimes and punishments, passed in the year 1809, eh. 138, s. 5, declares it to- bo a felony to bum a barn that is empty, or having in it personal property; and inasmuch as a barn may have in it other things than, personal property, as animals feree natures, such a barn, cannot be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Keller v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1857
- Busey v. HooperCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1872
- Keller v. DeanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Shell Oil Co. v. BrownleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1942