Morgan v. Booth
| Citation | 76 Ky. 480 |
| Parties | Morgan v. Booth. |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1877 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Kentucky |
APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.
L. P. LITTLE FOR APPELLANT.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
W. N. SWEENEY AND OWEN & ELLIS FOR APPELLEE.
CHIEF JUSTICE LINDSAY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
Appellee avers that he was duly and legally sworn as a witness to testify in an action between the commonwealth and the appellant, then pending before one F. M. King, a justice of the peace; that he did testify; and that while in testifying of and concerning a material question involved in the case, the appellant maliciously and falsely charged upon and spoke of and concerning him and his testimony these words, "That his said testimony was false, and the reason the plaintiff testified falsely against him was, that he (the plaintiff) was a bitter enemy of him (the defendant), and that he (the plaintiff) knew nothing about the said case in court."
And also, at the same time and place, these other words, "Your testimony is false, and you know nothing about this case; and you would not so testify if you were not my bitter enemy; and that the plaintiff had perjured himself."
The answer of appellant is not good as a plea of not guilty. While he denies having used the language charged by appellee in the first and second paragraphs of his petition, he does not controvert each charge separately and specifically, but rather denies the truth of the two charges taken together, and then, to make plain his intent, he proceeds to deny that he used said language or any similar language falsely or maliciously, or with intent to injure the good name or fame of appellee; and, by way of further explanation or excuse, explains that he conducted his own defense before the justice, and cross-examined plaintiff, and called attention to certain alleged inconsistencies and contradictory statements in his testimony; and he claims that any thing he may have then said was addressed to the court in attempting to sustain his defense to the action, and for no other purpose, and was not in excess of his lawful right to indulge in fair criticism and legitimate argument.
According to the well-established rules of construction, this answer in effect admits the speaking of the words complained of, and sets up and relies on the time and circumstances attending the speaking to show that they were privileged, and therefore not the subject of an action for slander. It is essentially a plea in confession and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pottinger v. Botts
...afforded to defamatory statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding has a long history in this Commonwealth....”); Morgan v. Booth, 76 Ky. 480 (1877). A communication must fulfill two requirements in order to fall within the ambit of the judicial statements privilege. First, the c......
-
Morgan & Pottinger, Attorneys, P.S.C. v. Botts
...to defamatory statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding has a long history in this Commonwealth . . . ."); Morgan v. Booth, 76 Ky. 480 (1877). A communication must fulfill two requirements in order to fall within the ambit of the judicial statements privilege. First, the commun......
-
Smith v. Hodges, No. 2005-CA-000057-MR.
...malice of the party, and not in good faith as a remedy for the assertion of a right or the redress of a wrong. Several years later, in Morgan v. Booth,18 the court addressed statements made by the defendant in a criminal case while another witness was A party to a judicial proceeding may, b......