Harris v. Burley
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Case for slanderous words. The declaration contained the usual averments, and alleged that the plaintiff, at the time when, &e., was, and had been a trader, and had exercised and carried on, and did still exercise and carry on, the business of a country trader, and vender of goods, wares, and merchandize, &c.; that he had always maintained himself by honest, industrious attention to his business and calling aforesaid, and that the defendant, maliciously contriving to defame…
Read the full summary
Case for slanderous words. The declaration contained the usual averments, and alleged that the plaintiff, at the time when, &e., was, and had been a trader, and had exercised and carried on, and did still exercise and carry on, the business of a country trader, and vender of goods, wares, and merchandize, &c.; that he had always maintained himself by honest, industrious attention to his business and calling aforesaid, and that the defendant, maliciously contriving to defame the plaintiff, and injure him in his trade, on, &c. in a certain discourse, which the defendant then and there had with…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
It has sometimes been thought necessary to explain by inuendo almost every word set forth in a declaration for slander; and where the language was most simple, and from the context not liable to be misunderstood, the record has been overloaded with inuendos. It is undoubtedly best in all cases of doubt to insert an inuendo, in order clearly to affix the slanderous meaning of the words uttered; but where the interpretation of the language used is apparent of itself, an inuendo is useless. 8 Mass. Rep. 255, Walker vs. Winn. The only office of t he inuendo is to state the meaning of what…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burtch v. NickersonNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thomson v. CashSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1985