Stowell v. Beagle
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 79 Ill. 525,1875 WL 8678 |
| Parties | ISAAC R. STOWELLv.HELEN BEAGLE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Henry county; the Hon. GEORGE W. PLEASANTS, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. BENNETT, KRETZINGER & VEEDER, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. H. BIGELOW, for the defendant in error.
The original record contains a placita, entitled of the October term, 1871, and the amended record a placita of the February term, 1873, at which the cause was tried. If there was any objection to the record, as filed, on that ground, it has been removed by filing the amended record. This disposes of the first objection urged by appellant.
It is next urged, that the court erred in giving improper instructions for appellee. The issue formed in the case was, whether appellee had been guilty of fornication. The declaration averred that appellee was an unmarried woman, and that appellant had charged her with being pregnant, thereby intending to charge her with fornication. Appellant justified the speaking of the words, and averred she had been guilty of fornication, and, as we have seen, issue was taken on the justification.
On the trial, appellant introduced evidence to prove that appellee had been pregnant, to thus establish the truth of his plea. He also introduced evidence for the purpose of endeavoring to prove specific acts of fornication. Thus, it will be seen that an effort was made to prove it in two modes. And on that question the court gave this instruction:
“In order to enable the defendant to sustain his justification by proof that the words charged are true, on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of fornication, and that she was delivered, though an unmarried female, of a child, it is necessary that such facts constituting the justification should be proved by satisfactory evidence, and if not so proved the defense on that ground fails.”
When this case was previously before this court, (57 Ill. 97,) an instruction similar to this was held to have been improperly given, as tending to direct the minds of the jury to an immaterial collateral issue.
As the record was then presented, the instruction was not limited or qualified by other instructions in the case, but on the last trial other instructions were given that rendered this one harmless. The fifth of the defendant's instructions told the jury, that if they believed, from the evidence, that plaintiff had committed fornication with either of several persons named, or with any other man, before the words were spoken, then they should find for the defendant. And the sixth is this:
“The jury are instructed, that in order to sustain the defense of justification in this case, it is not necessary for the defendant to prove that the plaintiff was the mother of the dead child, or that she was in a family way in the summer of 1868; but if the jury believe, from a preponderance of evidence, that the plaintiff had sexual intercourse with any man before the time of the speaking of the words set out in the declaration, then the preponderance is complete, and the jury will find a verdict for the defendant.”
In view of these instructions, it is impossible to conceive that appellee's instruction could have misled the jury. Had it stood unexplained, then the presumption would be that it might, with the conflict of evidence in the case, have misled the jury in their finding. But these instructions are so clear and free from all obscurity, that they could not be misunderstood by the dullest apprehension.
It is urged that appellee's third instruction is erroneous, and should not have been given. It informs the jury that the repetition of the slanderous words by appellant might be considered by the jury on the question of malice, and in aggravation of damages. This instruction is sustained by the cases of Hatch v. Potter, 2 Gilm. 725, Beasley v. Miegs, 16 Ill. 139, and Spencer v. McMasters, ibid. 405--nor have we any inclination to overrule or modify these decisions. They are of long standing, have been followed by others, and been regarded as the settled law of this court.
It is next urged, that the court below erred in giving appellee's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Gleason
...63 Ill. 151; Stobie v. Dills, 62 Ill. 432; Lettick v. Honnold, 63 Ill. 335; C. R. I & P. R. R. Co. v. Herring, 57 Ill. 59; Stowell v. Beagle, 79 Ill. 525; T. W & W. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217. LELAND, P. J. This was an action on the case by the administratrix of the estate of George H.......
-
Vanloon v. Vanloon
...reputation of plaintiff was in issue, but evidence of particular facts were inadmissible. Yager v. Bruce, 116 Mo.App. 473; Stouwall v. Beagle, 79 Ill. 525; Robertson v. Hamilton, 45 N.E. 56; DeVan Rose Tholborn, 134 S.W. 1093. OPINION NIXON, P. J. This was an action for damages for slandero......
-
Tuyl v. Riner
...v. Binder, 75 Ill. 492; Nichols v. Mercer, 44 Ill. 250; Rice v. Brown, 77 Ill. 549; Sterling Bridge Co. v. Baker, 75 Ill. 139; Stowell v. Beagle, 79 Ill. 525; T. P. & W. R. R. Co. v. Ingraham, 77 Ill. 309; Durham v. Goodwin, 54 Ill. 469; Town of Vinegar Hill v. Busson, 42 Ill. 45; N. L. Pac......
-
James v. Johnson
...41 Ill. 9; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Swearengen, 47 Ill. 206; Vinegar Hill v. Busson, 42 Ill. 45; Durham v. Goodwin, 54 Ill. 469; Stowell v. Beagle, 79 Ill. 525. Instructions did not take away question of negligence from jury: O. & M. R'y Co. v. Porter, 92 Ill. 438. The giving of erroneous instruc......