Marble v. Chapin
| Decision Date | 27 February 1882 |
| Parties | William H. Marble v. Cyrus Chapin |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Worcester. Tort for slander. The fourteenth count of the declaration, which is the only count material to be stated alleged that the defendant publicly, falsely and maliciously accused the plaintiff of the crime of adultery by words spoken of the plaintiff substantially as follows: "Mr Marble has had intercourse with you, (meaning a certain woman to whom said words were spoken by the defendant, the said person so addressed by said defendant being a married woman and said Marble being an unmarried man.)" Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
The only evidence to prove the substantive charge of the fourteenth count was that of Mary Ann Cummings, who testified to a single conversation with the defendant, in which he said to her, "What do you think of your minister?" meaning the plaintiff. "He has had intercourse with you, and I can prove it, for your looks prove it." It appeared that this conversation was had when no one was present except Cummings and the defendant; she testified, on cross-examination, that she never repeated it to any other person until after this action was brought; and there was no evidence to contradict this testimony. It also appeared that Cummings was a married woman and that the plaintiff was an unmarried man at the time said words were uttered; and that both had been such ever since they were acquainted.
The defendant asked the judge to rule that the statement made to Mary Ann Cummings, that the plaintiff had had intercourse with her, was not actionable under the allegations contained in the fourteenth count, unless other parties were present at the time.
The judge refused so to rule; the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
F. T. Blackmer & G. H. Ball, for the defendant.
F. P. Goulding & C. A. Merrill, for the plaintiff.
The defendant now relies only upon his exception to the refusal of the court to rule as requested by him, "that the statement made to Mary Ann Cummings, that the plaintiff had had intercourse with her, was not actionable under the allegations contained in the fourteenth count, unless other parties were present at the time."
His...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harbison v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...that such slander would be joint, and the wife would not be a third person for purpose of publication. This is not the law. Marble v. Chapin, 132 Mass. 255. Such a violates every principle of reason. It amounts to this: If Filipczak falsely and wrongfully accuse plaintiff of stealing, he is......
-
Peterson v. Western Union Telegraph Company
...be the damages. See Malloy v. Bennett, 15 F. 371; Ferguson v. Evening Chronicle, 72 Mo.App. 462; Alabama v. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9; Marble v. Chapin, 132 Mass. 225; Williamson v. Frere, 43 L.J.C.P. 161; Young v. 49 N.Y.S. 634. OPINION BUCK, J. Action for libel. Verdict for plaintiff for $2,000 ......
-
Shafir v. Steele
...quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 (1977) ("it is enough that [libel be] communicated to a single individual")15; Marble v. Chapin, 132 Mass. 225 (1882). In Marble v. Chapin, supra, we held that a plaintiff, who was falsely accused of having an affair with a married woman, could re......
-
Louka v. Park Entertainments, Inc.
... ... from the extent of publication proved. Markham v ... Russell, 12 Allen, 573, 90 Am.Dec. 169; Marble v ... Chapin, 132 Mass. 225; Smiddy v. Pearlstein, ... 201 Mass. 246, 87 N.E. 572,131 Am.St.Rep. 397 ... Specifications, useful as they may be ... ...