Anthony v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 30 November 1822
• Citation: 1 Mo. 254
• Parties: ANTHONY v. STEPHENS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 Mo. 254

ANTHONY

v.STEPHENS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November Term, 1822.

ERROR FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

JONES, J.

This was an action on the case for slander, brought by the plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, against the defendant, for calling him a murderer, a God dam'd murderer. Plea, not guilty, and issue joined. On the trial of the cause, several exceptions were taken and filed to the opinion of the Court, admitting improper evidence to be given for the defendant, which exceptions were: First, for admitting evidence to be given to the jury of the general character of the plaintiff, in mitigation of damages; second, for admitting evidence to be given for the defendant in mitigation of damages; that the words were spoken by others, and that it was a current report; third, for admitting the testimony one Wm. Edgar to go to the jury as evidence for defendant, which stated that previous to April then last, there was a report in circulation that the plaintiff had committed murder, which report took place after the death of one Jacky B. Stephens; that it was reported, by a number of persons, that he had committed a murder on a Yankee pedlar in Tennessee; that a Mr. Rubottom had told him that he saw a man from Tennessee, who told him so, and that was the way the report was circulated, and this was the murder he referred to before. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with one cent damages; on which judgment was entered; to reverse which, the plaintiff brought his writ of error, and assigned for error the exceptions taken to the opinions of the Judge, for admitting the several matters above, and in nullo est erratum pleaded. When a party institutes an action of slander, he puts his general character in issue as to the crime or charge imputed to him by the defendant. It does not appear by the bill of exceptions, how far the general character of the plaintiff was permitted to be gone into; we must, however, presume that it related only to his being a murderer; and if so, we think the decision of the Court below was correct, in permitting the general character of the plaintiff, on that head, to be given in evidence for the defendant in mitigation of damages. As to the second point in the bill of exceptions, we are of opinion that the Court below erred in permitting evidence to prove that the same words were spoken by others, and that it was a current report: for if fifty or five hundred persons had made use of similar slanderous...