McCleneghan v. Reid
Decision Date | 13 April 1892 |
Citation | 51 N.W. 1037,34 Neb. 472 |
Parties | MCCLENEGHAN v. REID. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. In an action for slander, and to recover money paid under duress, a part of the same transaction, issues were joined, and a trial had, which resulted in a verdict of $500 for the plaintiff. There being a conflict in the testimony, the court will not disturb the verdict.
2. On the trial the plaintiff introduced testimony in support of his cause of action; the defendant thereupon introduced evidence to sustain his answer; the plaintiff then introduced evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by the defendant, and to show that the cattle in controversy in fact belonged to him, and were not branded as claimed by the defendant. Held no error.
3. The order in which proof is introduced is to great extent in the discretion of the trial court, and, unless a party has been deprived of a substantial right or there is an abuse of discretion, the action of such court will not be reversed.
4. In an action for slander, proof that the defendant repeated the words alleged to be slanderous at other times before the bringing of the action than those set forth in the petition may be introduced for the purpose of showing malice.
5. There is no material error in the instructions.
Error to district court, Douglas county; DOANE, Judge.
Action by John Reid against Samuel McCleneghan for slander. From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.E. F. Gray, for plaintiff in error.
Cowin & McHugh, for defendant in error.
This is an action in two counts,--the first to recover the sum of $102.27 paid under alleged duress; and the second, as a part of the same transaction, for slander in calling the defendant in error a thief. The defendant below in his answer alleges: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pennsylvania Company v. Kennard Glass & Paint Company
... ... the trial court, and to work a reversal an abuse of ... discretion must be shown. See McCleneghan v. Reid, ... 34 Neb. 472, 51 N.W. 1037; Consaul v. Sheldon, 35 ... Neb. 247, 52 N.W. 1104; Basye v. State, 45 Neb. 261, ... 63 N.W. 811. No ... ...
-
Bee Publishing Company v. World Publishing Company
...amended and its infirmity cured, without terms, during the trial, or even after verdict. It was within the doctrine of McCleneghan v. Reid, 34 Neb. 472, 51 N.W. 1037, denial of malice and a substantial justification of the act of which plaintiff complains. That the Bee Publishing Company re......
-
Pa. Co. v. Kennard Glass & Paint Co.
...adduced rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and, to work a reversal, an abuse of discretion must be shown. McCleneghan v. Reid, 34 Neb. 472, 51 N. W. 1037;Consaul v. Sheldon, 35 Neb. 247, 52 N. W. 1104; Bayse v. State, 45 Neb. 261, 63 N. W. 611. No abuse of discretion is discl......
-
Bee Pub. Co. v. World Pub. Co.
...amended, and its infirmity cured, without terms, during the trial, or even after verdict. It was, within the doctrine of McCleneghan v. Reid, 34 Neb. 472, 51 N. W. 1037, a denial of malice, and a substantial justification of the act of which plaintiff complains. That the Bee Publishing Comp......