Hayward v. Maroney
| Citation | 85 A. 379,86 Conn. 261 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1912 |
| Parties | HAYWARD v. MARONEY. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; John Coats, Judge.
Action by Gertrude Hayward against Elizabeth Maroney. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Andrew J. Broughel, Birdsey E. Case, and Joseph L. Barbour, all of Hartford, for appellant.
Sidney E. Clarke, of Hartford, for appellee.
This is an action for slander. The slanderous words alleged were actionable per se, and the court found that they were false and malicious. It therefore properly overruled the defendant's claim that the plaintiff was entitled to only nominal damages.
The evidence of Mrs. Reed as to the speaking of the words was properly received. She stated, it is true, that they were spoken some time in February, the month in which the suit was commenced, and the ground of objection was that it did not appear that the words were uttered before the bringing of the action. But she fixed the date as being on the day that she learned that the plaintiff had received a certain letter from the defendant, and there was evidence offered tending to prove that this was on the 20th of February. The action was commenced on the 23d of February.
The testimony of the same witness to prove a subsequent repetition of the same words by the defendant concerning the plaintiff was properly received for the purpose for which they were offered, to prove actual malice, and thus lay the foundation for enhanced damages.
The letter from the defendant to the plaintiff (Exhibit A) was properly received in evidence in connection with testimony showing that it was the one referred to by Mrs. Reed, that it was received by the plaintiff on February 20th, and that she at once notified Mrs. Reed by telephone that she had received it. The evidence tended to fix the time when the slander was uttered, and show that it was prior to the bringing of the action.
The questions asked the plaintiff on cross-examination as to her previous arrest for damaging the defendant's property and her having settled for such damage were properly excluded. Neither of them tended to show a contradiction of the witness' former statements, and thus affect her credibility, and they were not admissible as tending to show bias on the part of the plaintiff in giving her testimony; these being the grounds upon which they were claimed. Similar questions asked of the defendant for the same purpose upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moynahan
...Evidence of arrest without conviction, however, is not admissible as evidence to attack the credibility of a witness. Hayward v. Maroney, 86 Conn. 261, 262, 85 A. 379; Card v. Foot, 57 Conn. 427, 432, 18 A. 713; see the cases collected in note, 20 A.L.R.2d 1421, 1425 § 3. The offer of evide......
- Kelo v. City of New London
-
Lawrence v. Kozlowski
...and of the rule forbidding extrinsic testimony of misconduct.' 3A Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn Rev.) § 980a, p. 835. See Hayward v. Maroney, 86 Conn. 261, 262, 85 A. 379. Accord, 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. Torcia) § 477; annot., 20 A.L.R.2d 5 See General Statutes § 14-109. Issue......
-
Penfield v. Venuti
...or bias is intended to be shown," State v. Moynahan, supra, 164 Conn. at 601, 325 A.2d at 220, quoting 124 Record & Briefs 298, Hayward v. Maroney, 86 Conn. 261, 85 A. 379 (1912), and defendants' counsel will be free at that time to object on the grounds that evidence of the arrest is sough......