Lester v. Thurmond

• Decision Date: 31 January 1874
• Citation: 51 Ga. 118
• Parties: Patman Lester, plaintiff in error. v. Samuel P. Thurmond,defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

51 Ga. 118

Patman Lester, plaintiff in error. v. Samuel P. Thurmond, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1874.)

Slander. Attorney at law. Privileged communications, Pleading. Evidence. Before Judge Rice. Clarke Superior Court. February Adjourned Term, 1873.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

SpeER & Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

Cobb, Erwin & Cobb, by Jackson & Clarke, for defendant.

*Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought an action of slander against the defendant, alleging in his declaration that the defendant, as counsel representing one Eliza Kenny in a justice\'s court, on the trial of a criminal case, in which one Jesse Robinson was accused of the offense of malicious mischief in killing a hog or hogs of the said Eliza Kenny, did falsely and maliciously, in a certain discourse which he addressed to the court and jury, speak, utter and publish the following false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory words, to-wit: "Patman Lester, an able-bodied man, helped Jesse Robinson kill this poor widow\'s hogs." On the trial of the case, the jury found a verdict for the defendant. A motion was made for a new trial, on the several grounds set forth in the record, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.

1. Mason, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he was one of the jurors who tried the case of the State V, Robinson; that defendant was counsel for the prosecution; does not remember all that he said, but does remember that he said in his speech, "Patman Lester, an able-bodied, stout man, helped Jesse Robinson kill this poor widow's hogs;" does not know that there was anything in the evidence that implicated Lester with the case; he was not sworn as a witness. On being reintroduced, stated that there was no evidence that connected Lester with the killing of the hogs. This is the substance of the evidence for the plaintiff. Was this evidence sufficient, under the law, to entitle the plaintiff to a verdict? The words are proved to have been spoken by the defendant as an attorney at law, in the discharge of his duty as such, in the regular course of judicial proceedings before a court. The clear distinction which the law recognizes between words spoken by an attorney at law, in addressing a jury in the regular course of judicial proceedings, and the same actionable words spoken in private conversation, not privileged communications, is this: No action can be maintained...