Forbes v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 17 December 1850 |
| Parties | Forbes v. Johnson, etc. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Libel and Slander. Equity. Jurisdiction.
ERROR TO THE CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT.
McLarning, for plaintiff.
Morehead & Reed, for defendants.
Case stated and the declaration.
IN this action for a libel against Johnson and others, the declaration states that the defendants wickedly intending etc., did on, etc., maliciously publish of and concerning the plaintiff a certain false, scandalous, and defamatory libel, containing among other things the false, scandalous, and defamatory matters following of and concerning the plaintiff, that is to say: " To the chancellor of the Christian Circuit Court, the complainants Robinson Johnson, etc., executors of the last will and testament of Samuel Johnson deceased, would respectfully represent, etc." The declaration goes on to copy the statements made in the alleged libel importing that the testator had executed to John Forbes his note for about $208, payable in lumber on demand; that a considerable portion of the lumber having been delivered, part before the testator's death, Wm. Johnson, one of the complainants (now defendants), on the ____ day of _____ called on James Forbes, then the holder of the note, and as they believe a partner with said John in the whole transaction, for the purpose of settling the amount of credit, etc., when $151 44 was the amount agreed on, and credited on account of lumber delivered--and said W. Johnson then discovered that said note purported to have been executed for about $308, and that on the reverse side it was indorsed in figures for about $208, and having always understood from those present when the note was executed, that it was only for about $208, he (W. Johnson) then questioned the correctness of said note, and intimated that it had been altered fraudulently --that said payments were made without knowledge of said fraudulent alteration --that complainants (now defendants), have been informed that there is now an assignment on said note which obscures or obliterates the figure 2 in the figures 208 indorsed on it, and that said figure 2 has been changed to figure 3, so as to correspond with the sum mentioned in the note --that they (complainants, now defendants), are informed, believe and charge that there was no assignment on the note when the credit was indorsed, but it has been since made with the intent and purpose of destroying a part of the evidence of the alteration of said note --that they have called on said James Forbes (the plaintiff), to produce said note to them, also to sue upon it, both of which he has failed to do --that if said note is just they are ready and willing to pay it--that they are anxious to wind up and settle the estate of their testator, and therefore demand the production of the note as a voucher (by the credit on it), and the only voucher for their payments on it--that they have measured and set apart lumber to satisfy the balance of the note, and notified John and James Forbes to come and receive it and surrender the note, which they have failed and refused to do. That they (the present defendants), believe and charge that the note has been fraudulently changed and altered with the intent to defraud and swindle the estate of the testator; that they believe and charge that the note itself furnishes evidence that it has been tampered with, and they apprehend it will be held up or lost and not attempted to be enforced until all the evidence of its alteration shall have been lost, or until all witnesses shall have died.
Inuendoes are inserted in the declaration at the end of almost every statement of the alleged libel, applying the various charges to the plaintiff, and inferring against him the charge of fraud and forgery. And a demurrer to the declaration having been sustained the only question now presented is, whether it discloses a good cause of action.
Demurrer filed thereto.
It is contended in the first place, that there is not enough in the face of the declaration to authorize the inuendo that the charges made or implied were intended to be made against the plaintiff. And in the second place,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. Grimes Pass Placer Mining Company
... ... 950, ... 61 L. R. A. 914; Mower v. Watson, 11 Vt. 536, 34 Am ... Dec. 704; Abbott v. National Bank, 20 Wash. 552, 56 ... P. 376; Johnson v. Brown, 13 W.Va. 71.) ... Where a ... complaint in libel discloses on its face that the alleged ... libel was published in the course ... case to be privileged." ... The ... same rule has been adopted in Kentucky. In Forbes v ... Johnson, 50 Ky. 48, 11 B. Mon. 48, the court said: ... "The principle is well settled, and is, indeed, ... essential to the ends of ... ...
-
Kenworthy v. The Journal Co.
...understood by the hearers. On that subject, the rule is the same whether the slander be oral or written." The question decided in Forbes v. Johnson, 50 Ky. 48, was as to sufficiency of the petition alone, a demurrer having been sustained by the trial court on the ground that it did not stat......
-
American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc. v. Simpson
...So.2d 585; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Skinner, 200 Miss. 44, 25 So.2d 572. The opinion upholding recovery relies on the 1850 case of Forbes v. Johnson, 50 Ky. 48, and Hardy v. Williamson, 86 Ga. 551, 12 S.E. 874, 13 In view of the court's rationale as discussed in Division 2(a) of this opinio......
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Skinner
...The controlling opinion leans heavily upon the doubtful authority of Jarnigan v. Fleming, 43 Miss. 710, 5 Am.Rep. 514, and Forbes v. Johnson, 50 Ky. 48. The authority these cases, the former decided in 1870, and the latter in 1850, nearly a century ago, has been much impaired by the enlight......