Hastings v. Stetson

• Decision Date: 06 January 1881
• Parties: Lucia M. Hastings v. James Stetson
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

130 Mass. 76

Lucia M. Hastings v. James Stetson

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

January 6, 1881

Argued September 21, 1880

Hampshire. Tort in five counts, for slander, in accusing the plaintiff of the crimes of adultery and fornication. Answer a general denial. After the former decision, reported 126 Mass. 329, the case was tried in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The evidence was conflicting as to whether the alleged slanderous words were spoken or not. One of the jurors at the former trial was called by the plaintiff, for the purpose of showing liability and the truth of the allegations of the plaintiff's declaration, and was permitted, against the defendant's objection, to testify that, after this case had been opened to the jury at the former trial, the defendant said to him, "You go for me," or "You do what is right, and I will pay you for it;" and that afterwards the defendant again approached him, while the case was in progress, and before it was given to his jury, and pulled out money and held it out to him.

John W Smith, a witness for the plaintiff, was permitted, against the defendant's objection, to testify that the defendant told him he, the defendant, was going to tell Tom Hastings (the plaintiff's husband) that he was sleeping with a whore. This was admitted as a repetition of a similar slander. The plaintiff's counsel asked her in chief if she heard of the publication by the defendant of the slanders alleged in her declaration, and she was permitted, against the defendant's objection, to testify that she did hear of the same. On cross-examination she testified that she heard of the same from various persons. She further testified, without objection, that she suffered mentally more than she could express from such publication.

The judge instructed the jury that the defendant was not liable for any unauthorized repetitions of his slander by other persons; and that they could award nothing for damages caused by such repetitions.

The defendant offered in evidence, in mitigation of damages, the following paper, with evidence that the same was executed in duplicate by the plaintiff and defendant at the plaintiff's request at the time of its date, and that it referred to vulgar and indecent conduct on the part both of the plaintiff and the defendant. "Amherst, Nov. 6th 1874. This is to certify that I, James Stetson, will not testify in public nor in private nor to any person or persons what has been said or done since our acquaintance, and we are to be on friendly terms hereafter, and nothing is to be said of what one has had belonging to the other." The defendant contended that this paper tended to show the plaintiff's knowledge of the character of the defendant, as affecting the wound his words would be likely to inflict, and that the plaintiff had not so delicate and susceptible modesty as to be so deeply wounded by the alleged words of the defendant...