Church v. Bridgman
| Decision Date | 30 September 1839 |
| Citation | 6 Mo. 190 |
| Parties | CHURCH v. BRIDGMAN & WIFE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
SCOTT and ZEIGLER, for Appellant. 1st. The error of the Circuit Court is in permitting the defendants to prove by a witness, that the defendant Cassa Bridgman heard the words spoken by another and that she only repeated them. On this point, see the case of Anthony v. Stevens, 1 Mo. R. 254. 2nd point relied on is the error of the Circuit Court in refusing to grant a new trial for the reasons filed. See the testimony in the case of Estes v. Antrobus, 1 Mo. R. 197, and the statute on the subject of new trials, page 470; 3 Mo. R. 188, Cooper v. Barlow.
BRICKEY, for Appellees. 1. That this cause was fairly submitted to a jury upon the issues joined, and the evidence of the plaintiff alone (the defendants offering no evidence), and the jury being exclusively judges of all facts and circumstances of the case and having found a verdict for the defendants, there is no error in the court refusing a new trial. 2. The evidence in this case shows that if the words spoken were slanderous, they were spoken by the wife of the defendant in his absence, without his knowledge, consequently the damage, if any, must have been inconsiderable, and it is a general rule where the damages must necessarily be trifling, the court will not grant a new trial. 3. The words charged and alleged to be slanderous in the declaration are not in themselves actionable and there being no special damages, laid or proved the plaintiff can not recover. 1 Chitty's Pl. 486-7-8; 1 Chitty's Pl. 381-2-3; 2 Chitty's Pl. 506-7, as to form of the plea. 3 Mo. R. 188, Cooper v. Marlow; 2 Esp. N. P. 88.
Church sued Bridgman and wife in the Circuit Court of Ste. Genevieve county for slanderous words spoken of him by the wife of Bridgman. The slanderous words charged in the declaration were that defendant said “that he (meaning Church), was packing up to go away and that he was a good deal behind hand, and that he was in the habit of handling and passing counterfeit money (meaning that he the said Church knew the same to be counterfeit), that he had passed a counterfeit ten dollar note on one Simms (meaning what is usually called a ten dollar bank note, and meaning that the said Church knew the same to be counterfeit), and that he got his counterfeit money from the same place where he bought his goods (meaning that the said Church knew the same to be counterfeit), and came down here (meaning the county of Ste. Genevieve), and passed it off when and as he could and that he (meaning the said Church), had taken counterfeit money and goods back in the county and purchased horses (meaning that he the said Church had bought horses and paid for them in counterfeit money and which he the said Church knew to be counterfeit), and that all this was no secret it being all over town (meaning the town of Ste. Genevieve, in the county of Ste. Genevieve),” &c. Defendants pleaded the general issue and a special plea in justification. The special plea alleged that before the speaking of the words charged, the defendant had been told by one Simms that the said plaintiff was a good deal behind and that he intended to go away, that the plaintiff was in the habit of passing bad money and that he (Church) had changed a twenty dollar bill for him (Simms), and that Church gave him a ten dollar counterfeit bill, and that it was the general report in town that he got the counterfeit and bad money from the same place where he got his goods, and came down here to pass it off, that it was no secret but generally known throughout the town, and that at the time of speaking the words charged, she, the said defendant, declared in the presence and hearing of all to whom she spoke the words she had heard, and been told the same by the said Simms. Issue was taken upon this plea, and upon the plea of not guilty; the parties went to trial, and the jury returned a verdict not guilty; a motion was made for a new trial because the verdict was without evidence, and not sustained by the evidence, and against law, which was overruled, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. The bill of exceptions shows the substance of the evidence to have been as follows: one Adams testified on behalf of plaintiff, that he called at Mr. Bridgman's house, and Mrs. Bridgman inquired of him how Church came on, if he was not going away; that Mr. Simms had told him on the day before, that he heard he was packing to go away, that he was a good deal behind hand, and he (Simms) told her, that he heard he was in the habit of handling and passing bad money; that he had changed a twenty dollar note for him, Simms, and Church gave him a ten dollar counterfeit note on the United States Bank, and that it was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Kansas City Star Co., 51705
...three of her teeth'; Palmer v. Hunter, 8 Mo. 512, '(Plaintiff) swore a point blank lie to clear William Sally of stealing honey'; Church v. Bridgman, 6 Mo. 190, '(Plaintiff) was in the habit of handling and passing counterfeit money'; Dyer v. Morris, 4 Mo. 214, 215, '(She) has gone down the......
-
Cook v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.
...rendered so by an innuendo, without a prefatory averment of extrinsic facts, which makes them slanderous." In the early case of Church v. Bridgman, 6 Mo. 190, plaintiff sued to recover damages for slander. The alleged slanderous words were that Church was in the habit of passing counterfeit......
-
Winsor v. Ottofy
...and sense to make it libelous, nor can this be shown by the innuendo. It is not the office of the innuendo to make averments. Church v. Bridgman, 6 Mo. 190; Wood v. Hilbish, 23 Mo.App. 389; Boyce Aubuchon, 34 Mo.App. 315; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 367; Legg v. Dunleavy, 80 Mo. 558; Powell v......
-
Miller v. Dorsey
... ... stated that plaintiff had changed a contract which is not ... sufficient to charge forgery. Church v. Bridgman, 6 ... Mo. 190; State v. Kattermann, 35 Mo. 105; Curry ... v. Collins, 37 Mo. 324; State ex rel. v. Dean, ... 40 Mo. 464; ... ...