Sloan v. Petrie
| Decision Date | 30 June 1854 |
| Parties | WILLAM SLOANv.HENRY PETRIE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
15 Ill. 425
1854 WL 4707 (Ill.)
5 Peck (IL) 425
WILLAM SLOAN
v.
HENRY PETRIE.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1854.
THIS cause was tried before J. G. WILSON, judge, at November term, 1853, of the Kane circuit court.
W. B. PLATO and GLOVER and COOK, for appellant.BLACKWELL and BECKWITH and J. F. FARNSWORTH, for appellee.
TREAT, C. J.
This was an action for slander, brought by Petrie against Sloan. The words laid in the declaration imputed the crime of perjury. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a special plea of justification. On the trial the plaintiff proved the speaking of the words, and the defendant offered evidence tending to sustain the justification. At the instance of the plaintiff, the court charged the jury, “that the defendant having justified the speaking of the slanderous words, if the jury believe that the proof has failed to sustain that defense, such plea of justification is in law an aggravation of the original slander, and the jury should consider the fact in estimating damages.” The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon.
The instruction presents a question respecting which there is much diversity of opinion. Some courts hold that a plea of justification in slander, if unsupported by evidence, is per se an aggravation of damages. The plea is regarded as a repetition of the charge, and evidence of continued malice. Fero v. Roscoe, 4 Coms. 162; Farley v. Ranck, 3 Watts and Sergeant, 554; Jackson v. Stetson, 15 Mass. 48; Wilson v. Nations, 5 Yerger, 211. Other courts hold that a plea of justification, which is not sustained by proof, does not necessarily go in aggravation of damages. The jury are to determine from the circumstances of the case whether the attempt to justify forms any ground for increasing the damages. Byrket v. Monahan,
[15 Ill. 426]
7 Blackf. 83; Chubb v. Flannagan, 6 Carrington & Payne, 431; Shank v. Case, 1 Carter, 170; Swails v. Butcher, 2 Carter, 84. It is held in another class of cases, that, where the justification is not fully established, the circumstances proved may be considered in mitigation of damages. McAllister v. Sibley, 25 Maine, 474; Chalmers v. Shackell, 6 Carrington & Payne, 475...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yager v. Bruce
... ... v. Carlisle, 108 Fed. 344, 47 C. C. A. 384. See Upton v. Hume, 24 Or. 420, 33 Pac. 810, 21 L. R. A. 493, 41 Am. St. Rep. 863; Sloan v. Petrie, 15 Ill. 425; Proctor v. Houghtaling, 37 Mich. 41; Ward v. Dick, 47 Conn. 300, 36 Am. Rep. 75. In some jurisdictions the rule is that ... ...
-
Reese v. Fife
... ... v. Carlisle, 108 Fed. 344 [47 C. C. A. 384]. See, too, Upton v. Hume, 24 Or. 420 [33 P. 810] 21 L. R. A. 493 [41 Am. St. Rep. 863]; Sloan v. Petrie, 15 Ill. 425; Proctor v. Houghtaling, 37 Mich. 41; Ward v. Dick [47] 42 Conn. 300 [36 Am. Rep. 75]." ... This ruling ... ...
-
Reese v. Fife
... ... v. Carlisle, 108 F. 344 [47 C ... C. A. 384]. See, too, Upton v. Hume, 24 Or. 420 [33 P. 810] ... 21 L. R. A. 493 [41 Am. St. Rep. 863]; Sloan v. Petrie. 15 ... Ill. 425; Proctor v. Houghtaling, 37 Mich. 41; Ward v. Dick ... [47] 42 Conn. 300 [36 Am. Rep. 75].' ... This ... ...
-
Buckley v. Knapp
... ... Harper, 16 Gratt. 76; Shank v. Case, 1 Ind. 170; Murphy v. Stout, id. 372; Swails v. Butcher, 2 Ind. 84; Shoulty v. Miller, 1 Ind. 544; Sloan v. Petrie, 15 Ill. 425; 16 Ill. 405; McAlister v. Tibley, 25 Me. 474; Sanders v. Johnson, 6 Blackf. 55.) It is not necessary to plead mitigating ... ...