Spencer v. William F. Mcmasters Et Ux.
Decision Date | 30 June 1855 |
Citation | 1855 WL 5454,16 Ill. 405,6 Peck 405 |
Parties | WILLIAM T. SPENCERv.WILLIAM F. MCMASTERS et ux. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
16 Ill. 405
1855 WL 5454 (Ill.)
6 Peck (IL) 405
WILLIAM T. SPENCER
v.
WILLIAM F. MCMASTERS et ux.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June Term, 1855.
THE sixth instruction asked for by defendant, which was refused, and which is referred to in the opinion of the court, is as follows: The words, “you came here to defend these two old worn out whoring bitches, who have shaken their shirt-tails at every man in Stephenson county, and I can prove it,” are not slanderous. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The cause was heard before SHELDON, Judge, and a jury, at November term, 1854, of the Stephenson Circuit Court.
T. J. TURNER, for Appellant.GLOVER and COOK, for Appellees.
SKINNER, J.
William McMasters and wife sued Spencer in the Stephenson circuit court, in case for words spoken of McMasters' wife.
Spencer plead the general issue, and also filed a special plea of justification, averring the truth of the words. McMasters and wife replied de injuria, and issue to the country was formed.
Spencer moved for a continuance on his affidavit, averring the truth of his plea of justification, and his expectation to be able to prove the same, and the cause was continued. At the next term, a jury was sworn to try the issue, and Spencer moved the court for leave to withdraw his plea of justification, to which the plaintiff below objected, and the court refused leave, and Spencer excepted.
[16 Ill. 406]
The jury found defendant guilty, and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $400.Instructions were given on both sides, but as no exception was taken to the rulings of the court on this point, they need not be noticed.
Spencer moved for a new trial, assigning for cause that the damages are excessive; that the court erred in refusing to give the sixth instruction asked for by Spencer, and that the evidence does not justify the verdict. The court overruled the motion, and Spencer excepted.
The damages are not excessive. In actions for slander, the jury are to determine, from all the circumstances of the case, what damages ought to be given, and they are not confined in their determination to mere pecuniary loss or injury; and unless the damages are such as to satisfy the court that the jury acted from prejudice, partiality or corruption, the verdict should not be disturbed. 2 Starkie on Slander, 105; Coleman v. Southwick, 9 Johns. R. 51; McNamara v. King, 2 Gil. 432.
The instruction refused is not the law. It assumes that, to falsely utter and publish of and concerning a...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Tuyl v. Riner
- Buckley v. Knapp
-
Vinal v. Core
... ... See Sweeney v. Baker, 13 W.Va. 222; Spencer v ... McMasters et ux, 16 Ill. 405; Coleman v ... Southwick, 9 Johns. 51; Southwick v ... ...
-
Davis v. Sladden
... ... se. [17 Or. 261] It was said by SPENCER, J., that "there ... is not, perhaps, so much uncertainty in the law upon any ... Roe, 23 Pa.St. 82; Burford v ... Wible, 32 Pa.St. 95; Spencer v. McMasters, 16 ... Ill. 405; Moberly v. Preston, 8 Mo. 462; Wilson ... v. Barnett, 45 Ind. 163; ... ...