Walker v. Winn
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of the case for defamation, and for a libel. The declaration contained two counts. The first, after stating the plaintiff’s good name, &c., and the defendant’s knowledge thereof, states that the defendant, intending to hurt the plaintiff in his said good name, &zc., and to subject him to the pains and penalties provided by the laws of this commonwealth for regulating elections, did at a legal town-meeting of the inhabitants of Burlington, in this county,…
Read the full summary
This was an action of the case for defamation, and for a libel. The declaration contained two counts. The first, after stating the plaintiff’s good name, &c., and the defendant’s knowledge thereof, states that the defendant, intending to hurt the plaintiff in his said good name, &zc., and to subject him to the pains and penalties provided by the laws of this commonwealth for regulating elections, did at a legal town-meeting of the inhabitants of Burlington, in this county, held on the first Monday of April, then last past, at said Burlington, for the election of governor, lieutenant governor,…
1Opinion of the Court
* By the Court.
Though the plea in bar may be bad in itself, as it seems to be agreed, it will yet be a sufficient answer to a bad declaration.
The question then remaining is on the insufficiency of the second count. The objection to it is, that the words charged do not of themselves amount to a libel, without recurring to the first count *215for circumstances necessary to prove their libellous nature. Whether such recurrence is admissible in this species of action or not, we do not think it necessary here to decide, because we are of opinion that the words in the second count of themselves…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Nelson v. MusgraveSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Keemle & Field v. SassSupreme Court of Missouri · 1849
- Cooper v. PerryMuscogee County Superior Court, Ga. · 1833