Tucker v. Walters

• Decision Date: 26 February 1887
• Citation: 2 S.E. 689,78 Ga. 232
• Parties: TUCKER v. WALTERS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

2 S.E. 689

78 Ga. 232

TUCKER v. WALTERS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 26, 1887

Error from Dougherty county. Action for damages.

R. Hobbs and D. H. Hope, for plaintiff in error.

W. T Jones, C. B. Wooten, and R. F. Lyon, contra.

BLANDFORD J.

In this case Tucker brought his action against Walters for beating and cutting him with a knife. On the trial of the case it appeared from the evidence that Walters had a claim against the plaintiff, Tucker, for a sum of money due by him to a certain insurance company which was represented by Walters for the premium on a policy of insurance. Walters met the plaintiff and asked him to pay this claim. The plaintiff invited him to come over to his office. Walters went there whereupon Tucker claimed that Walters was in debt to the firm of Callaway, Tucker & Davis a sum of money equal to the claim which Walters had against him, and asked that it be settled in that way. To this Walters objected, and contended that he did not owe Callaway, Tucker & Davis anything, because he had bought a large amount of meat from them, and paid them for it, and the same had fallen short to an amount greater than the claim which Walters had upon Tucker. Whereupon Tucker stated to him that the bill had been rendered to him, and he never had disputed it before; to which Walters replied, "It is not so," and Tucker repeated that it was so. Walters rejoined that it was not so; whereupon Tucker struck him a blow upon the head, which turned him around, and knocked his hat across the room. He then seized Walters from behind, catching his arm, and crushing him down upon the floor, and while in this condition Walters pulled out his pocket-knife, and stabbed him in the leg. The verdict was rendered for Walters, and thereupon the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was refused by the court. The main ground of the motion for new trial is that the court erred in charging the jury: "If the defendant said to the plaintiff in a mild, kind, or insulting manner, 'That is not so,' it would not be opprobrious words, that is, the words, to-wit, 'That is not so, ' not being themselves opprobrious words, the manner in which they might be said would not make them opprobrious." And this is the main ground of error assigned.

1. We think the court was wrong in so instructing the jury. Whether the words used by the defendant were opprobrious or not was a question to be settled by the jury. The words...