Dickey v. Andros
Supreme Court of Vermont
Slander; The declaration charged the defendant with hav* ing used-, at the house of one Mary Webster, and concerning a pretended sexual intercourse between the plaintiff and said Mary, the following words, viz: “ I saw Dickey (meaning the plaintiff) here (meaning where the defendant then was) on Friday night, (meaning Friday, the 80th of May, 1856.) I saw him and heard him and can swear t'o it, and can prove it.
Read the full summary
Slander; The declaration charged the defendant with hav* ing used-, at the house of one Mary Webster, and concerning a pretended sexual intercourse between the plaintiff and said Mary, the following words, viz: “ I saw Dickey (meaning the plaintiff) here (meaning where the defendant then was) on Friday night, (meaning Friday, the 80th of May, 1856.) I saw him and heard him and can swear t'o it, and can prove it. He (meaning the plaintiff) was not here for any good design, (meaning that the plaintiff was with said Mary for purposes of adultery.) I will break up the haunt if I can possibly do…
1Opinion of the Court
Redeield, Ch-. J.
The declaration in the present case is for slander in charging the plaintiff with the crime of adultery, committed with Mary Webster. The words alleged are equivocal, not necessarily, or naturally perhaps, implying such an offence. But it is competent by means of prefatory averments, and innuendoes refering to such prefatory averments or colloquiums, to give the words spoken a more extended import than they would otherwise bear. But the truth of the colloquium and of the innuendoes is to be inquired of and determined by the jury. And if the testimony given by the plaintiff in…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Whitley v. NewmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
- Prewitt v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Gregory v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
- Johnson v. St. Louis Dispatch Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- State v. AtkinsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.