Laine v. Wells
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Yates common pleUS. Laine Stied Wells in án action of slander, for charging him With having stolen a barrel of pork from Otie William Babcock.
Read the full summary
Error from the Yates common pleUS. Laine Stied Wells in án action of slander, for charging him With having stolen a barrel of pork from Otie William Babcock. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and attached to his plea a notice that on the trial of the cause he Would proVe, that before the speaking of the Words, the parties, plaintiff and defendant, jointly , purchased of William Babcock two barrels of damaged prime pork,-at the price of $8 per' barrel, and that in taking away the pork, the plaintiff, instead of taking the ■ two barrels purchased, took, without the knowledge of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
The defendant in error contends that this case comes within the principle of the cases of Van Rensselaer v. Dole, 1 Johns. Cas. 279, and Dexter v. Taber, 12 Johns. R. 239. In the first of those cases the words charged the plaintiff and others with being robbers and murderers, but were understood by the witnesses to relate to an unpleasant fracas which took place the day preceding, and which was nothing like robbery or murder. In the latter the charge was that the plaintiff was a thief, and that he stole hoop poles and saw logs, and the witnesses understood the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Rensselaer v. DoleNew York Supreme Court · 1800
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. BurnhamSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1837
- Eaton v. WhiteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1847
- Coghlan v. DinsmoreThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862