Vogel v. Gruaz
Decision Date | 04 February 1884 |
Citation | 28 L.Ed. 158,4 S.Ct. 12,110 U.S. 311 |
Parties | VOGEL, Ex'r, etc., v. GRUAZ |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. K. Edsall and Jno. B. Hawley, for plaintiff in error.
H. S. Greene and Jno. M. Palmer, for defendant in error.
This is an action on the case, brought by Timothy Gruaz, against Rudolph Bircher, to recover damages for the speaking and publishing of false, malicious, scandalous, and defamatory words, charging the plaintiff with being a thief, and with having stolen the money of the defendant, meaning the crime of larceny. The suit was commenced in a state court of Illinois, and was removed by the defendant into the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Illinois. At the trial before a jury a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, June 6, 1879, for $6,000 damages. On the next day the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. On the fourteenth of June the defendant died, on the twelfth of July an order abating the case was moved for, on behalf of the defendant, and on the sixteenth of August the court overruled the motion for a new trial and the motion for an order of abatement, and entered a judgment for the plaintiff, against Bircher, for $6,000 and costs, as of June 7, 1879. The order for judgment recited that the hearing by the court of the motion for a new trial was, when it was filed, postponed to a then future and convenient day of the same term, and that the defendant died pending the hearing of the motion. Leave was given to the executor of the defendant to prepare a bill of exceptions and to take a writ of error. The bill of exceptions being signed, it was filed by the executor, and the writ of error was issued. Various errors are assigned, and among them that the circuit court did not grant the motion to abate the suit, and that it rendered a judgment against Bircher after his death. But it is unnecessary to pass on those questions, because we are of opinion that the judgment must be reversed for another error committed at the trial.
Three witnesses for the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the speaking to them by the defendant of more or less of the words set forth in the declaration; and afterwards C. L. Cook was sworn as a witness for the plaintiff, and testified that he was state's attorney for Madison county, Illinois; he had a slight acquaintance with Bircher; and that he knew Gruaz. The following proceedings then occurred: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Edwards
...actions there was normally an absolute privilege for statements made in the institution of criminal charges. See Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 4 S.Ct. 12, 28 L.Ed. 158 (1884); Borg v. Boas, 231 F.2d 788, 794 (9th Cir.1956); Prosser, supra at 781; Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 587.18 In......
-
Morss v. Forbes
...251, 254, 59 S.Ct. 174, 176, 83 L.Ed. 151, (154); In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, 15 S.Ct. 959, 39 L.Ed. 1080; Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 316, 4 S.Ct. 12, 14, 28 L.Ed. 158, (160). The purpose of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public interest in effective law enforcem......
-
State v. Milligan
...See also In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532, 535--536, 15 S.Ct. 959, 960, 39 L.Ed. 1080, 1081 (1895) (dictum); Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 314, 4 S.Ct. 12, 13, 28 L.Ed. 158, 160 (1884); 2 Underhill, supra, § 327 at 819.6 In State v. Roundtree, a narcotics agent 'insinuated himself into (a drug) ......
-
Soucie v. David
...639 (1957) (identity of informers); In re Quarles & Butler, 158 U.S. 532, 15 S.Ct. 959, 39 L.Ed. 1080 (1895); Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 4 S.Ct. 12, 28 L.Ed. 158 (1884); Freeman v. Seligson, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 69-70, 405 F.2d 1326, 1339-1340 (1968); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. City of ......
-
Piercing the veil of informant confidentiality: the role of in camera hearings in the Roviaro determination.
...informants). (54.) 353 U.S. 53 (1957). (55.) See, e.g., In re Quarles & Butler, 158 U.S. 532, 535-36 (1895); Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 316 (56.) See PROP. R. 510; Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 59. (57.) See PROP. R. 510. The scope of the privilege is limited, however, "[w]here the disclosure......
-
SOURCES AND LIMITS FOR PRESIDENTIAL POWER: PERSPECTIVES OF ROBERT H. JACKSON.
...Rawle 23 (Pa. 1815). (88) See Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459, 470 (1900); In re Querles, 158 U.S. 532, 536-37 (1895); Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 311 (1884); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 181, 204-05 (1881); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 105 (1876); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U......